541 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Vormaerin wrote...

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.

Neither have I, but a dev explained how it works not long after the game came out.  If you couldn't get it to work, then you probably missed some opportunities to get Paragon points.  For instance, if you went to a new area and didn't do everything there before doing Zaeed's mission, the game would still calculate based on the fact that those points were available.

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...

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?

Alliance gave you SR1, not Council. Also they gave you right to BUY Spectre gear, you didn't got it from them.

Also for mining. Well somebody has to get those resources. I don't think probe get's them directly.


And VI becoming AI?
Did you forget about Luna, that side mission with Mechs and Overlord?
Which is also BIG maybe.

And that would be completely DIFFERENT character, unless Bioware decided to make EDI out of VI from their deepest bottom of their ass.

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.

First of all, I was talking about crew that runs Normandy, NOT squadmates.

And why would Council develop same list? Why would they? I'm sure Illusive Man developed those dossiers while Shepard was still dead.

And danger that Reapers can take back that base? Why would they take back that base unless their cycle continues as planned? They could just build another one.

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

Well yes.
What was the point of that post anyway then?

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.

THAT NEVER HAPPEN.

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.

What makes you think ME3 plot is going to be worse?

[ExtremeOne]

Vormaerin wrote...

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.

  





I hope I am secertly working with Cerberus in 3. 

[armass]

It was really nice of them to resurrect my Shepard, ill send them a freaking postcard for that and some flowers. But the point is these guys are still terrorists, pure and simple, and as evidenced by ME3 their leader is a manipulative, backstabbing bastard. I would never work for Al-Qaida , even if they resurrected me. TIM just used Shepard, and now he wants to clean his hands. Alliance are a-holes, maybe, but at least they are not baby killing, human testing xenophobic terrorists.

Modifié par armass, 23 avril 2011 - 01:25 .

[88mphSlayer]

armass wrote...

It was really nice of them to resurrect my Shepard, ill send them a freaking postcard for that and some flowers. But the point is these guys are still terrorists, pure and simple, and as evidenced by ME3 their leader is a manipulative, backstabbing bastard. I would never work for Al-Qaida , even if they resurrected me. TIM just used Shepard, and now he wants to clean his hands. Alliance are a-holes, maybe, but at least they are not baby killing, human testing xenophobic terrorists.

if we were living the movie independence day i probably wouldn't care who i worked for, it's like living in a zombie apocalypse and refusing to use a gun because your relative was once killed with a gun, or burning a car instead of using it to escape because you're an environmentalist

[armass]

88mphSlayer wrote...

armass wrote...

It was really nice of them to resurrect my Shepard, ill send them a freaking postcard for that and some flowers. But the point is these guys are still terrorists, pure and simple, and as evidenced by ME3 their leader is a manipulative, backstabbing bastard. I would never work for Al-Qaida , even if they resurrected me. TIM just used Shepard, and now he wants to clean his hands. Alliance are a-holes, maybe, but at least they are not baby killing, human testing xenophobic terrorists.

if we were living the movie independence day i probably wouldn't care who i worked for, it's like living in a zombie apocalypse and refusing to use a gun because your relative was once killed with a gun, or burning a car instead of using it to escape because you're an environmentalist

Yeah maybe if alien invasion was imminent and al-qaida, who was the only one knowing about them, would resurrect me to fight them i would follow them for a while since no one else would believe me, but if they wanna kill me during the invasion and my own military finally gets off from the chair to fight aliens, i wouldn't hold any loyalty to al-qaida anymore and would go to help my military. Especially since i know how al-qaida value and operate things and would like to gain alien technology to take over the earth. Alien invasion doesnt change the fact al-qaida are terrorists.

Modifié par armass, 23 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[MajesticJazz]

 

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I don't think it's bioware backing up the paragon fans. It's more like the story is more linear thn it was in me2. In me1 they said how you will make all of these decisions that will dramatically change the universe in the subsequent games. Obviously that didn't happen in me2. Now me3 is going to be the same, and possibly worse. Thats why I've learned to play this game for what it is - a shooter, not an rpg. Try it, and you won't be as disappointed
-Polite

Going back to 2006 and even early-mid 2007....all Bioware talked about is how Shepard is the tip of the spear for Humanity on a galactic scale and how every choice you make reflects positively or negatively for humanity. They talked about how your decisions in this game will have dire consequences in the later games and while shape the landscape for your personal story.
What dire consequenes did I have to experience in ME2 because of my ME1 decisions? NONE! And that is where my faith in what they said sort of diminished. Not to mention how Bioware marketed the hell out of the fact that they would be continously expanding the universe of ME1 through DLC to the point where each DLC will tell the story between what happens between ME1 leading up to ME2....and we all saw how that happened.

Point is, Bioware has said this and that about ME and about a small percentage of it was actually true. Now Bioware is wanting me to believe that ME3 would be the ultimate choice/consequence game? Personally, I'm not buying it. Bioware's story is similar to that of the boy who cried wolf in a sense. Maybe they are right and ME3 will be that choice/consequence game that ME2 wasn't but I'm not going to get my hopes up for it. I'll just take what Bioware says with a grain of salt and move on.
---------------------------------------------------
As for people saying that Renegades do not get cameos because they kill everyone, that is BS! Take the Helena Blake situation for example:

If you let her live, she appears on Omega and depending on  how you talked to her in ME1, she is either now working as a social worker (Paragon) or merged her crime organization with Aria (Renegade). However if you killed her in ME1, there could still be a cameo. Say you are walking on the Citadel and you see some high profile diplomat/businessman. He calls you over and would like to thank you for what you did a few years ago by taking out Helena Blake and her associates. He could mention that because of your actions, certain routes and regions of the galaxy are now safer as they are no longer hindered by the crimes of Helena Blake and her known associates.

Another example would be the Fist situation. In ME1 you can let Fist go and he'll appear on Omega and mention that he is now a construction worker or something to that nature and that he is clean and to just leave him alone. However if you kill him he isn't there. Instead, going back to my Citadel situation with Helena Blake's death, when talking to Captain Bailey for the first time, he could mention that things in the wards have cleaned up a bit now that Fist is dead and blah blah blah. While that isn't really a cameo, it is still a pat on the back and nod/recognition for those players who did kill Fist in ME1.

That would be a perfect way for trigger happy ME1 players to not be left out of ME2/ME3 cameos.
--------------------------------------------------
Going back to choices in ME2 vs ME3

If Bioware knew all along that it would be ME3 where we finally see the results of our choices, the Bioware should have been honest up front. If in 2006/2007 Bioware said that you will make important choices in ME1 but for the most part, the results of these choices won't be felt until ME3. Then I would have been totally fine with that! I would have played ME1 with the notion that what I'm doing won't really bee seen/felt in ME2, but will in ME3. So when I do get to ME2 I won't have all these high expectations and I would have essentially been okay with the "emails" and minor cameos.

HOWEVER, Bioware didn't do that. Instead they force feed us the idea that our ME1 choices will have dire consequenes in BOTH ME2 and ME3. That led a lot of us to believe that ME2 will begin the "branching out" phase, not ME3. 

So this isn't just a simple case of fans complaining and not  being happy about anything. No, this is technically Bioware false advertising.
-------------------------------------------------
And all of this talk about how ME3 will be the game that finally plays out our decisions. Honestly, I think you people are giving Bioware too much credit.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see the results until the last 2 hours or so of the game which would be lame. I can back this up with the notion that in the GI article, Casey Hudson said that it will be similar to the suicide mission in ME2 where all of these variables happened based on your decisions in the game and ME3 will be similar but at a faster pace.

That leads me to believe that like ME2, ME3 will essentially be the same game through no matter what you did in ME1 and ME2 and we won't see the results until the final few cut scenes which would be lame. 

I don't want to wait til the final part of the game to experience my results from ME1/ME2, I want to be reminded all throughout the course of the game about my decisions from the previous two games.

If that is the case and our results is not felt until the last few cutscenes, then I should just play ME3 with one Shepard and see how her choices plays out and just YOUTUBE the other choices and see how they play out because there is no reason in going back to do another playthrough in which everything will be the same until the final few cutscenes.

Modifié par MajesticJazz, 23 avril 2011 - 02:09 .

[88mphSlayer]

armass wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

armass wrote...

It was really nice of them to resurrect my Shepard, ill send them a freaking postcard for that and some flowers. But the point is these guys are still terrorists, pure and simple, and as evidenced by ME3 their leader is a manipulative, backstabbing bastard. I would never work for Al-Qaida , even if they resurrected me. TIM just used Shepard, and now he wants to clean his hands. Alliance are a-holes, maybe, but at least they are not baby killing, human testing xenophobic terrorists.

if we were living the movie independence day i probably wouldn't care who i worked for, it's like living in a zombie apocalypse and refusing to use a gun because your relative was once killed with a gun, or burning a car instead of using it to escape because you're an environmentalist

Yeah maybe if alien invasion was imminent and al-qaida, who was the only one knowing about them, would resurrect me to fight them i would follow them for a while since no one else would believe me, but if they wanna kill me during the invasion and my own military finally gets off from the chair to fight aliens, i wouldn't hold any loyalty to al-qaida anymore and would go to help my military. Especially since i know how al-qaida value and operate things and would like to gain alien technology to take over the earth. Alien invasion doesnt change the fact al-qaida are terrorists.

that's assuming there's going to be an earth left to take over

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

Alliance gave you SR1, not Council. Also they gave you right to BUY Spectre gear, you didn't got it from them.

Also for mining. Well somebody has to get those resources. I don't think probe get's them directly.

And VI becoming AI?
Did you forget about Luna, that side mission with Mechs and Overlord?
Which is also BIG maybe.

And that would be completely DIFFERENT character, unless Bioware decided to make EDI out of VI from their deepest bottom of their ass.

It wasn't your ship until after you are appointed Spectre. Before that, Anderson was captain. Most of the gear you get in ME2 is found or bought too. You can gloss over the fact you need to collect resources to research topics, but the fact is you do need to in both games, despite the fact that the upgrades advance Council and Cerberus tech respectively. Neither employer provides for you on the level you are talking. Oh and as a Spectre, you have much more control over where you send the Normandy. With Cerberus, you literally stop whatever you are doing whenever TIM calls. If you don't accept that, Joker disobeys your commands and stops the ship anyway. That is much less 'your ship' than in ME1.

First of all, I was talking about crew that runs Normandy, NOT squadmates.

And why would Council develop same list? Why would they? I'm sure Illusive Man developed those dossiers while Shepard was still dead.

And danger that Reapers can take back that base? Why would they take back that base unless their cycle continues as planned? They could just build another one.

Most of that is the SAME CREW. They defected after the Council split them up after Shepard's death. There was no absolute need to write it that way. When TIM developed the dossiers is irrelevant. The STG could have an identical list. The shadow broker could easily have an identical list.

Building another base would take time and resources. This particular one would be all ready to go, and would even come packed full of replacement slushy ingredients.

Well yes. What was the point of that post anyway then?

The point was that their arguement against any significant divergance was that it was impractical given the budget they had, but that same arguement applies in ME3. They are not going to want a lower profit margin simply because it is the last game, especially since they don't have to worry about selling a 4th.

THAT NEVER HAPPEN.

Sure it does. You try going to astrogation to lay in a course any time TIM calls. Joker tells you that you had better talk to TIM before he will lay in a course. Nevermind that you were perfectly able to talk to the council while heading anywhere without having to stop or change course in advance. You could do that after you finish talking with them. Joker stops the SR2 every time. He refuses to lay in any course Shep wishes to set until TIM is happy. What game were you playing?

What makes you think ME3 plot is going to be worse?

A combination of things.

1) They seem to have tossed aside the original ME1 writer for whatever internal reason in favour of witing that doesn't seem quite as good  The usual reason for such a change after a successful product is usually cost savings rather than better vision.

1) a) We are told everything is canon whether it is consistant or not.  Again, that is usually putting quick profits over quality. "You must buy everything to understand the whole picture!" It is great if it works, but they don't seem to be particularly adept at holding it all together, or even concerned.

1) Arbitrary betrayals such as the Council being against you regardless or Cerberus turning on you regardless. The Council could have backed you privately while letting you know they cannot do so publicly due to Cerberus, but that otherwise they trust you. There would have been no changes needed. You would still have gotten no help from them since it could have been traced to them, but you would have known they still believe in you.

2) They seem to be equating gear options with RP, and say that ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME2 but less than ME1. The impression they leave is that they are more interested in producing an inferior shooter using the ME setting than a great game with an FPS element.

3) Their response to criticism over the plot seems to be 'Just wait til ME3." Well after ME3 they won't have to say such things to sell the product because there will be no ME4, so the words on their own ring empty, especially given the above.

I hope all my concerns prove false, but I am not anxious for ME3 at the momment.

[Moiaussi]

88mphSlayer wrote...

armass wrote...

It was really nice of them to resurrect my Shepard, ill send them a freaking postcard for that and some flowers. But the point is these guys are still terrorists, pure and simple, and as evidenced by ME3 their leader is a manipulative, backstabbing bastard. I would never work for Al-Qaida , even if they resurrected me. TIM just used Shepard, and now he wants to clean his hands. Alliance are a-holes, maybe, but at least they are not baby killing, human testing xenophobic terrorists.

if we were living the movie independence day i probably wouldn't care who i worked for, it's like living in a zombie apocalypse and refusing to use a gun because your relative was once killed with a gun, or burning a car instead of using it to escape because you're an environmentalist

In fact there are plenty of historical examples of enemies working together against common foes. There is even a trite saying 'Politics makes strange bedfellows" My only issues against working with Cerberus under the circumstances are that it was forced, and (from within the game) that TIM doesn't work with the Council, constantly withholding vital information.

[crooked]

Perhaps a reboot of the franchise was needed to ensure continuity throughout the three games?
Story-wise and contunuity wise I was just aswell abit dissapointed in Mass Effect 2.
All I can do is have faith in Bioware to deliver something as epic as the first one. And my faith is something they deserved over the past decade

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...


It wasn't your ship until after you are appointed Spectre. Before that, Anderson was captain. Most of the gear you get in ME2 is found or bought too. You can gloss over the fact you need to collect resources to research topics, but the fact is you do need to in both games, despite the fact that the upgrades advance Council and Cerberus tech respectively. Neither employer provides for you on the level you are talking. Oh and as a Spectre, you have much more control over where you send the Normandy. With Cerberus, you literally stop whatever you are doing whenever TIM calls. If you don't accept that, Joker disobeys your commands and stops the ship anyway. That is much less 'your ship' than in ME1.

That still doesn't change the fact that Alliance gave you ship, not Council.


And for Cerberus having "control" over you? That only happen twice and it wouldn't make any sense to delay that.

Collectors attacked Horizon. If you don't go there from instance, you won't get any more info past Freedom's Progress.

Derelict Ship. This is your probably one and only chance to find out to get past Omega 4 Relay. Would you rather go immediately or hope that Turians don't get there first or worse that some pirates find out.

Also Cerberus never told me to go for IFF and rush to Omega 4 Relay. I had choice to go there whenever I wished.

Most of that is the SAME CREW. They defected after the Council split them up after Shepard's death. There was no absolute need to write it that way. When TIM developed the dossiers is irrelevant. The STG could have an identical list. The shadow broker could easily have an identical list.

Building another base would take time and resources. This particular one would be all ready to go, and would even come packed full of replacement slushy ingredients.

If STG could do that, somehow, then joining Cerberus is stupid and only reason why you would join them is because it's Renegade choice.
Council has lot more resources then Cerberus and are not xenophobic criminals.


And for Collector base? After they complete the cycle, Reapers would have more then enough resources to build it again.

The point was that their arguement against any significant divergance was that it was impractical given the budget they had, but that same arguement applies in ME3. They are not going to want a lower profit margin simply because it is the last game, especially since they don't have to worry about selling a 4th.

Since when is Bioware like Activision?

Sure it does. You try going to astrogation to lay in a course any time TIM calls. Joker tells you that you had better talk to TIM before he will lay in a course. Nevermind that you were perfectly able to talk to the council while heading anywhere without having to stop or change course in advance. You could do that after you finish talking with them. Joker stops the SR2 every time. He refuses to lay in any course Shep wishes to set until TIM is happy. What game were you playing?

BTW, same thing happen in ME1 when you finish every main mission before hitting Ilos. What if I don't want to go to Citadel? What if I want to do some sidequests first?
Was he making TIM happy then or because it was needed for plot?

A combination of things.

1) They seem to have tossed aside the original ME1 writer for whatever internal reason in favour of witing that doesn't seem quite as good  The usual reason for such a change after a successful product is usually cost savings rather than better vision.

You do know Mac Walters worked on ME1 as well?
And that entire Mass Effect trilogy was written way before ME1 was finished?

1) a) We are told everything is canon whether it is consistant or not.  Again, that is usually putting quick profits over quality. "You must buy everything to understand the whole picture!" It is great if it works, but they don't seem to be particularly adept at holding it all together, or even concerned.

???

1) Arbitrary betrayals such as the Council being against you regardless or Cerberus turning on you regardless. The Council could have backed you privately while letting you know they cannot do so publicly due to Cerberus, but that otherwise they trust you. There would have been no changes needed. You would still have gotten no help from them since it could have been traced to them, but you would have known they still believe in you.

Yeah, they would totally give you big support against some threat that there's no evidence to show them.

2) They seem to be equating gear options with RP, and say that ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME2 but less than ME1. The impression they leave is that they are more interested in producing an inferior shooter using the ME setting than a great game with an FPS element.

ME2 was never less RPG then ME1. They just kicked out what was rubbish in ME1.

3) Their response to criticism over the plot seems to be 'Just wait til ME3." Well after ME3 they won't have to say such things to sell the product because there will be no ME4, so the words on their own ring empty, especially given the above.

I'm sure that Bioware wants to sell games after ME3. Giving a finger to both critics and fans will have negative consequences in future Bioware games.

I hope all my concerns prove false, but I am not anxious for ME3 at the momment.

Because they are false.

[SalsaDMA]

Mesina, the overaching story was written, yes, but all the details weren't.

This is also directly said in one of the interviews with them.

There is quite a bit of difference in having a storyboard describing the overall layout of the story, and then the actual story as presented by itself when it is 'done'.

and on your comment that there weren't less rpg in ME2, I have to call you either inacurate, or a flat out liar. The change to the paragon/renegade system threw roleplaying out the window in favour of metagaming.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 23 avril 2011 - 05:16 .

[CroGamer002]

^How it ruined roleplaying?

Modifié par Mesina2, 23 avril 2011 - 05:29 .

[SalsaDMA]

Mesina2 wrote...

^How it ruined roleplaying?

When you start picking choices, not because of how your character would react, but because you need a certain amount of points that choice gives you, then you are metagaming, not roleplaying.

That's what the paragon/renegade system fudged up in ME2.

If you can't see it's an issue that the game limits your character from making choices because of a virtual point system, then I don't know how else to explain to you what roleplaying and metagaming has of issues with each other.

[Clonedzero]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^How it ruined roleplaying?

When you start picking choices, not because of how your character would react, but because you need a certain amount of points that choice gives you, then you are metagaming, not roleplaying.

That's what the paragon/renegade system fudged up in ME2.

If you can't see it's an issue that the game limits your character from making choices because of a virtual point system, then I don't know how else to explain to you what roleplaying and metagaming has of issues with each other.

i found the situations where i didnt have enough paragon/renegade points to pick the "i win the convo" button to be the most interesting of outcomes actually. sure, you dont generally "win" the convo but it gets more interesting results.

example: the miranda vs. jack fight, sure if you have enough blue/red you can easily solve the situation and everyones happy. but picking a side in the fight and suffering the consquences is FAR more interesting, especially from a roleplaying perspective.

[AngelicMachinery]

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?

That warm and happy feeling of a job well done?

[CroGamer002]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^How it ruined roleplaying?

When you start picking choices, not because of how your character would react, but because you need a certain amount of points that choice gives you, then you are metagaming, not roleplaying.

That's what the paragon/renegade system fudged up in ME2.

If you can't see it's an issue that the game limits your character from making choices because of a virtual point system, then I don't know how else to explain to you what roleplaying and metagaming has of issues with each other.

Then I'm guessing you're playing ME2 wrong.

Clonedzero wrote...

i found the situations where i didnt
have enough paragon/renegade points to pick the "i win the convo" button
to be the most interesting of outcomes actually. sure, you dont
generally "win" the convo but it gets more interesting results.

example: the
miranda vs. jack fight, sure if you have enough blue/red you can easily
solve the situation and everyones happy. but picking a side in the
fight and suffering the consquences is FAR more interesting, especially
from a roleplaying perspective.

That.

Modifié par Mesina2, 23 avril 2011 - 05:49 .

[Seboist]

Vormaerin wrote...

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.

Are you really that dense? You do not comprehend the concept of seperate but equal outcomes that are neither good or bad?

Example from DA:O; There's a situation where you get the option of choosing to ally between Werewolves or Elves who are fighting each other, whoever you ally against you have to fight and then your ally helps you in the final battle. Depending on who you choose you get Werewolf brawlers or Elven archers fighting at your side. Neither outcome is "good" or "bad".

This is in stark contrast to the nonsense in ME where Paragon get to see the old council but Renegade don't see the human dominated one.

[Clonedzero]

in general i tend to hate the "i win the convo" choices in any RPG. takes all the roleplaying out of it.

like the talking skill in DA:O i forget what its called off the top of my head, but EVERYONE dumped all their skill points into that so they could always "win" the convo. but thats not roleplaying. if anything the talking skills should add more options but not indicate which one is the "winning" choice.

in ME with the charm/intimidate skill it was the same thing, everyone maxxed them out so they could win every convo they had, thats not roleplaying, thats having the easy way out of every situation.

too many times in ME1 and ME2 they gave you a hard choice, where you had to pick a side of make a big decision and if you had enough points you could just skip the hard choice and make everyone happy making the entire tense moment mean nothing.

play through ME1 and ME2 without picking any red or blue dialogue options, things actually turn out in a much more interesting way, generally theres usually ways you can win situations by carefully navigating your way through the convo.

like tali's trial if you pick the paragon/renegade option you auto win it, but i was able to win it without that and it was MUCH more satisfying.

[Seboist]

Clonedzero wrote...

in general i tend to hate the "i win the convo" choices in any RPG. takes all the roleplaying out of it.

like the talking skill in DA:O i forget what its called off the top of my head, but EVERYONE dumped all their skill points into that so they could always "win" the convo. but thats not roleplaying. if anything the talking skills should add more options but not indicate which one is the "winning" choice.

in ME with the charm/intimidate skill it was the same thing, everyone maxxed them out so they could win every convo they had, thats not roleplaying, thats having the easy way out of every situation.

too many times in ME1 and ME2 they gave you a hard choice, where you had to pick a side of make a big decision and if you had enough points you could just skip the hard choice and make everyone happy making the entire tense moment mean nothing.

play through ME1 and ME2 without picking any red or blue dialogue options, things actually turn out in a much more interesting way, generally theres usually ways you can win situations by carefully navigating your way through the convo.

like tali's trial if you pick the paragon/renegade option you auto win it, but i was able to win it without that and it was MUCH more satisfying.

Yeah, assigning points to "persuation" is just as anti-roleplaying as ME2's system of "I'm role playing as a ruthless enforce of justice...... oh wait I want to Paragon persuade the Jack/Miranda fight, *sigh* okay you're free to go criminal."

[CroGamer002]

All I can say that Fallout did it great.

You sacrifice gameplay elements to make fights more easier so you can have "WIN" card with high charisma and speech.
That's what I like in RPG's. Be manipulative.

[CroGamer002]

Seboist wrote...

Yeah, assigning points to "persuation" is just as anti-roleplaying as ME2's system of "I'm role playing as a ruthless enforce of justice...... oh wait I want to Paragon persuade the Jack/Miranda fight, *sigh* okay you're free to go criminal."

She'll go criminal even with Paragon persuade.

Modifié par Mesina2, 23 avril 2011 - 06:23 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mesina2 wrote...

That still doesn't change the fact that Alliance gave you ship, not Council.[/quote]

You figure the Council would have made you walk? Get a grip.

[quote]And for Cerberus having "control" over you? That only happen twice and it wouldn't make any sense to delay that.[/quote]

And Joker knew that, how? Talking with TIM could have been done in transit. They could still have changed course if they needed to, and might have been going in the right direction anyway incidentally. Dismiss it all you want, but Cerberus was keeping you on a shorter leash than the Council was.

[quote]Collectors attacked Horizon. If you don't go there from instance, you won't get any more info past Freedom's Progress.[/quote]

And you could have been sent there by the Council just as easily.

[quote]Derelict Ship. This is your probably one and only chance to find out to get past Omega 4 Relay. Would you rather go immediately or hope that Turians don't get there first or worse that some pirates find out.[/quote]

The Turians that TIM lied about the existance of? You are forgetting it was a fake signal? And TIM claimed to be jamming the fake.

[quote]Also Cerberus never told me to go for IFF and rush to Omega 4 Relay. I had choice to go there whenever I wished.[/quote]

And the Council only asked you not to go certain places. They didn't order you to rush anywhere. Remember you are the one trying to make the case that the Council couldn't have given you the same clues Cerberus did, that there couldn't have been parallel, similar paths. So far you seem to have abandoned that case and are getting bogged down in details.

[quote]If STG could do that, somehow, then joining Cerberus is stupid and only reason why you would join them is because it's Renegade choice.[/quote]

Not entirely stupid. They each have different politics, so a decision as to which to support could support different types of decisions in the field, and possibly different gear.

[quote]Council has lot more resources then Cerberus and are not xenophobic criminals.[/quote]

The Council has more resources, but are more contrained in using them since they have to answer to their constituents back home. The net effect is that there could have been similar resources available to each. Perhaps some different gear or training to make each side interesting in different ways, but they could have been kept similar in a believable fashion.

[quote]And for Collector base? After they complete the cycle, Reapers would have more then enough resources to build it again.[/quote]

That depends on what the role it played in the cycle, doesn't it? If it is as unimportant as you suggest, then ME2 really was a complete and utter waste of time.

[quote]Since when is Bioware like Activision?[/quote]

Since when has Bioware not been a for-profit company? Note that their managerial philosophy may have changed when EA bought them, but hard to say if that is an issue or not.


[quote]BTW, same thing happen in ME1 when you finish every main mission before hitting Ilos. What if I don't want to go to Citadel? What if I want to do some sidequests first?
Was he making TIM happy then or because it was needed for plot?[/quote]

There is a subtle difference though. In ME1, the Council asked him to retrurn and Shepard wanted to, thinking they were finally going to take the threat seriously as they promised in their transmission. We may have been forced to accept Shepard's decision, but it was still Shepard's. Not TIM's, not the Council's, not Joker's.


[quote]You do know Mac Walters worked on ME1 as well?
And that entire Mass Effect trilogy was written way before ME1 was finished?[/quote]

Reaaaaaaly. So then why didn't they have the ME2 combat engine for ME1? And why were the comics released so late rather than right from the start? And why is it taking this long for ME3? They would likely have had a plot outline, but there is no way the entire plot was written in advance. And if it was, why are there still writers on staff anyway?

[quote]???[/quote]

Elements of the comics, such as Bailey suddenly being considered a traitor, or Udina ending up in charge no matter how you choose come to mind off hand.

[quote]Yeah, they would totally give you big support against some threat that there's no evidence to show them.[/quote]

There is only a lack of evidence to the extent the writers say so. The derelect reaper was discovered by Shepard in ME1. Proper debreifing would have shown that the rest of the squad were not merely playing along with some delusion of Shepard. Sovereign was obviously studied after the battle (hence the Thannix), but the lack of similararities with Geth technology is utterly dismissed. And what does it cost them to allow investigation? One scout ship?

[quote]ME2 was never less RPG then ME1. They just kicked out what was rubbish in ME1.[/quote]

Appearantly the writers disagree with you. How do you explain their comment that ME3 will have more RPG elements than ME2 but less than ME1?

[quote]I'm sure that Bioware wants to sell games after ME3. Giving a finger to both critics and fans will have negative consequences in future Bioware games.[/quote]

And yet ME2 wasn't what they promised after ME1. You can say 'but they wouldn't do that' all you want, but they already have once.

[quote]Because they are false.[/quote]

So you claim to be on the Bioware staff then? If so you should be identifying yourself properly rather than pretending to be just another poster. If you are not on the Bioware staff, you have no basis to make such an absolute claim. I understand that you may believe the concerns to be false, but stop pretending that you know everything there is to know about an unfinished game.

[DPSSOC]

Vormaerin wrote...
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?

Can't speak for anyone else but all I want is some balance.  Now I'll say it right now I generally like how the Renegade choices panned out in ME2.  Made a choice, good thing we wanted happens, but bad thing that we didn't want also happens.  Humanity dominates the Council, but the aliens aren't cooperating.  We protected the galaxy from the Rachni, but it seems we also lost a powerful ally.  We made a choice and have both good and bad consequences.

My problem is I see no similar balance of the Paragon choice.  Nothing bad happens as a result of the Paragon choice that's unique to it.  I mean yes you save the Council and they refuse to help you but they refuse to help you if it's a new Council too.  A good suggestion has been made that yes you saved the Council, but there's unrest back home ("No blood for aliens!").  You save the Rachni, and rumours of sightings have the galaxy on edge.

Doesn't have to be big, doesn't have to punish story or gameplay, just some unintended negative consequence to go along with the positive consequence of your choice.  That's all I want I don't feel like I'm asking for much.

Edit: Damn you sensitive mousepad

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

Hmm, I shall withold judgement for the moment as there's always the posibility of her coming back as, "Your mercy helped me see the error of my ways, yadda, yadda, yadda."  Provided that doesn't happen, even if we just hear nothing,  I would accept this as the just once.

Clonedzero wrote...
in general i tend to hate the "i win the convo" choices in any RPG. takes all the roleplaying out of it.

like the talking skill in DA:O i forget what its called off the top of my head, but EVERYONE dumped all their skill points into that so they could always "win" the convo. but thats not roleplaying.

Your point is invalid because I didn't dump all my points into it (hence not everyone).  Being convincing is a skill, it's something you have to work at.  Yes some people are naturally charismatic and have an easier time of it but swinging people to your side is a skill.  I've known people who couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst because, regardless of their reputation, they weren't good with words.

Yes some people dump points into it to get the "I Win!" option and doing so just for that isn't roleplaying but the fault lies on the player not the system.  In any RPG if a player uses knowledge the character doesn't have, including knowledge of the game mechanics. they aren't roleplaying.  I had a few characters with full Coercion in DA:O because I was roleplaying them as charismatic, persuasive people.  I also have characters with no Coercion because that's how I decided to roleplay them.

ME2's system takes the decision of whether nor not your Shep is good at convincing people away from the player.  ME1 had the right idea P/R scores (your reputation) gave you a few points but it didn't carry you very far.  If you wanted Shep to be good at talking people down that was your choice.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 23 avril 2011 - 08:18 .