153 réponses à ce sujet

[Sandbox47]

I see no passes and yet a lot of complaining is going on... I should be a mod. I should have their powers to remove unaproved complaining. And then these threads would slowly die, one by one. I mean - I guess that it's fund to complain, but I can only see pettiness here!

[Undertone]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Seriously tho, I really find it annoying
how some people patronize or even insult others because of a choice they
made in a video game. Speculation and fanboy rage apart, grade school
children do that.

Actually unlike you, I haven't called anyone a retard at least in this thread. I'm not patronizing anyone about any choice. That's purely your interpretation. This thread was never about choice from morality stand point. If you follow the thread you can see some people immediately argued "my morality compass" must be messed up if I gave the base to someone as crazy as Cerberus yada yada. So I simply replied back providing reasons why that is not the case. If you don't agree with me you can either skip the thread or point where you don't agree with me and why. Simple. And about imaginary community conflicts? Chill bro, I'm not trying to create a forum renegade revolution or something. I have no clue what you talk about.

Sapienti wrote...

What was the point of ME2? Improve the gameplay and increase revenue der. ME2 was the necessary filler between games to experiment and tweak the formula for the third go. You'll see that in a lot of trilogies, first is loved, second is polarizing, third is a mixture of what worked best with the first two. ME2 was a nice exercise of storytelling on a smaller scale. They had you put together a team for the purpose of taking down a filler enemy but the point wasn't the enemy you were going after, it was the journey along the way, caring about the characters you picked up and making them loyal.

Everything else were simply plot devices to move the story forward but that doesn't mean its pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong Undertone but you haven't played ME3 yet so you don't know why the Cerberus is trying to kill Shepard, there could be a very good reason as to why he's turned on him a couple months later. Also, I have to agree with MR. Kusy, you sound like a complete tool when you talk about "Bioware's foster kids the Paragons". The very idea is just stupid, and your example is even stupider "Hm, give the base to Cerberus? Sure what could possibly go wrong" and then you get angry when something does go wrong? What'd you expect from the guy who set you up several times throughout the game?

Anyway, ME2 was like a really good filler episode of a show that was also laced with canon and lore, you won't know what was and wasn't truly pointless until we get all the details pertaining to the ME3 plot.

Again if you followed my other posts you will see that I'm the first one to admit that I haven't played ME3  hence I could be speculating entirely. But based on what we know so far I've came up with the following conclusion. Otherwise I sincerely hope ME3 is the most amazing, awesome game. How does that prevent me from providing my opinion on it from what I know so far?

"Bioware's foster kids the Paragons" - it's a joke bro. Not everything I say I mean with 100% seriousness. However it is true that Bioware has favored paragons. Again I don't hate pure paragons and I'm not pure renegade even. I don't like the lack of content. And of course here you will say the most typical **** line how "Gee when you kill people, you don't expect them to return from the dead, don't you?". The answer to this is quite simple - you kill Juhani in KotoR, you have her gf/friend attack you at Korriban in KotoR. What about the new Council that has it's power thanks to my actions directly (or indirectly I suppose)? What about public lash for me because I comitted genocide? Fist had no mafia friends that come after me? That random guy I kill doesn't have family that can hate me for it? I can come up with tons of examples where there can be renegade content.

Another point is that from meta-game perspective you know the paragon decision will turn up to be the right one. Releasing criminals and they turn reformed, the Rachni queen turns out to be good etc. I'm not arguing against the morality of those choices or if you should make them. I'm arguing that one path is consistently right from a meta-game perspective where the other path is consistenly presented as wrong or evil despite the motivations our Shepards act with. Everyone post-SM will say keeping the Collector base is wrong, even team mates who previously were supportive of that action. I may have sacrificed the Council for purely military tactics, not because I wanted create human domination. Of course everyone thinks I've killed them personally. You keep the Collector base and now suddently Cerberus is evil so you likely get no benefit from it (again speculation, might be wrong once I play ME3). I just don't like how every renegade action is rail-roaded to be evil or wrong. I see renegade as the path on which Shepard sacrifices his morality, soul if you want to call it that way and a piece of herself in order to achieve the greater good. I realize other people play renegade maybe purely for fun or to be deuschbags or whatever reasons but last I checked this isn't dark side vs light side and I'm not playing KotoR.

Modifié par Undertone, 05 mai 2011 - 08:46 .

[Seboist]

Undertone is right on the money when it comes to a clear Paragon bias. The perfect example being the ME1 council decision. People who sacrificed the council are deprived of seeing the new one and aliens accuse him of trying to railroad humanity on a power trip but humans don't accuse him of being an "alien stooge" if he sacrificed Alliance ships*.

There doesn't seem to be any point to sacrificing the council from a meta-gaming POV.

* Khalisah does go after Shep for this but she picks a fight with him regardless of what he did so that doesn't count.

Modifié par Seboist, 05 mai 2011 - 08:56 .

[Asari_Party]

Undertone complains that all his practical and pragmatic renegade decisions are punished? Now that's something new <_<

[Undertone]

Roxy12 wrote...

Undertone complains that all his practical and pragmatic renegade decisions are punished? Now that's something new <_<

Uhm. Did you read anything I wrote? I have a problem with the system. I don't have problem with people's choices or morality. Play the game how you want to.

Modifié par Undertone, 05 mai 2011 - 09:07 .

[MisterJB]

Seboist wrote...
 aliens accuse him of trying to railroad humanity on a power trip but humans don't accuse him of being an "alien stooge" if he sacrificed Alliance ships*.
 

Well, we didn't exactly go to Earth or Arcturus Station, did we? The only humans we had contact with were either in the Terminus systems, and so decisions regarding the Council don't matter much to them, or lived in the Citadel and saw their lifes improved after humanity gained the trust and regard of the other Council races.

Modifié par MisterJB, 05 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Seboist]

MisterJB wrote...

Seboist wrote...
 aliens accuse him of trying to railroad humanity on a power trip but humans don't accuse him of being an "alien stooge" if he sacrificed Alliance ships*.
 

Well, we didn't exactly go to Earth or Arcturus Station, did we? The only humans we had contact with were either in the Terminus systems, and so decisions regarding the Council don't matter much to them, or lived in the Citadel and saw their lifes improved after humanity gained the trust and regard of the other Council races.

The humans in Zakara ward aren't exactly living it up. Either way, it doesn't irk me as much as the lack of seeing the new council.

[Undertone]

MisterJB wrote...

Seboist wrote...
 aliens accuse him of trying to railroad humanity on a power trip but humans don't accuse him of being an "alien stooge" if he sacrificed Alliance ships*.
 

Well, we didn't exactly go to Earth or Arcturus Station, did we? The only humans we had contact with were either in the Terminus systems, and so decisions regarding the Council don't matter much to them, or lived in the Citadel and saw their lifes improved after humanity gained the trust and regard of the other Council races.

Similarly we didn't invade the Citadel immediately after destroying Sovereign. And we gave our lifes still when fighting him. But now humans are **** because of a time-critical high risk decision that didn't have anything to do with indirectly killing the Council or putting humans on top. And I remember in the last dialogue there's an actual line that says "I did it to kill the Council, when I saw an oppurtunity" as opposed "We had to focus on Sovereign". I guess that would differentiate an extreme renegade from a moderate renegade? 

Unfortunately it's all useless in terms of meta-gaming because both choices work up fine in terms of stopping Sovereign but one results in negative reputation for Shepard and the other doesn't. Oh well I guess my Shepard will end up being a misunderstood anti-hero

[MisterJB]

Undertone wrote...
Unfortunately it's all useless in terms of meta-gaming because both choices work up fine in terms of stopping Sovereign but one results in negative reputation for Shepard and the other doesn't.

Well, duh. Humanity was already viewed as somewhat of a bully and then, the Alliance leaves the Council to die and extablishs their own. What were you expecting to happen?
And do you think aliens will like it if Shepard gives Reaper technology to a pro-human terrorist organization?
The Pure Renegade path is all about making pragmatistic decisions that will eventually favor humanity over the other races and give Shepard a bad name. The public does not know what was Shepard's reasoning at the time he made this decisions and it doesn't care.
Bottom line, aliens will always hate a Renegade Shepard but Humanity will be stronger thanks to him and that's what's important to a Renegade, no?

Modifié par MisterJB, 05 mai 2011 - 09:36 .

[Undertone]

MisterJB wrote...

Undertone wrote...
Unfortunately it's all useless in terms of meta-gaming because both choices work up fine in terms of stopping Sovereign but one results in negative reputation for Shepard and the other doesn't.

Well, duh. Humanity was already viewed as somewhat of a bully and then, the Alliance leaves the Council to die and extablishs their own. What were you expecting to happen?
And do you think aliens will like it if Shepard gives Reaper technology to a pro-human terrorist organization?
The Pure Renegade path is all about making pragmatistic decisions that will eventually favor humanity over the other races and give Shepard a bad name. The public does not know what was Shepard's reasoning at the time he made this decisions and it doesn't care.
Bottom line, aliens will always hate a Renegade Shepard but Humanity will be stronger thanks to him and that's what's important to a Renegade, no?

I like to think Renegade as the more pragmatic, realistic path that gives me the highest chances of survival. If however those choices coincidentally favor humanity then so be it. I would rather have human dominance then extinction.

I've never considered myself as pure renegade. Pure paragons and pure renegades are extremely shallow, one sided characters in my opinion. If somebody's interested in playing them however by all means do so. 

[Il Divo]

If it requires a seperate payment for the content, it's a seperate instalment, as far as I'm concerned.

When the content no longer is contingent upon my owning a copy of Mass Effect 2, then I will agree with you. Throne of Bhaal requires Baldur's Gate II. The Frozen Throne requires Warcraft III. Bringing down the Sky requires Mass Effect 1. Are you paying separately? Yes, but you might as well regard the alternate appearance pack as a separate instalment; it all still requires that you play Mass Effect 2.

Well, at least someone admits I'm witty

But yes, dark energy is foreshadowing.  It may have something to do with the Reapers.  But there was very little of it compared to killing random mercs who had done nothing to me and have absolutely  nothing to do with Collectors, Reapers, or Protheans

As 'foreshadowing' goes, I think conversations with Tali and Gianna Parasini filled its purpose. It wasn't intended to be in your face "Hey! This is where Mass Effect 3 is going!". It was intended as a more subtle, 'this is what the galaxy is investigating' type thing.

As for Star Wars...no evidence of Yoda.  but for other things, off the top of my head:

"You have taken your first step into a larger world"

"Remember, the Force will be with you.  Always"

"Luke's just not a farmer, Owen.  He has too much of his father in him"
"That's what I'm afraid of"

And yet Obi-Wan died in Episode IV. In other words, Yoda was an ass pull (as was Vader being Luke's father). Episode V's plot could have gone in twenty different directions, depending on how it was handled. In Episode V, Luke's Jedi training could have been completely abandoned due to lack of a teacher.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 mai 2011 - 10:39 .

[Sapienti]

Undertone wrote...

Again if you followed my other posts you will see that I'm the first one to admit that I haven't played ME3  hence I could be speculating entirely. But based on what we know so far I've came up with the following conclusion. Otherwise I sincerely hope ME3 is the most amazing, awesome game. How does that prevent me from providing my opinion on it from what I know so far?

"Bioware's foster kids the Paragons" - it's a joke bro. Not everything I say I mean with 100% seriousness. However it is true that Bioware has favored paragons. Again I don't hate pure paragons and I'm not pure renegade even. I don't like the lack of content. And of course here you will say the most typical **** line how "Gee when you kill people, you don't expect them to return from the dead, don't you?". The answer to this is quite simple - you kill Juhani in KotoR, you have her gf/friend attack you at Korriban in KotoR. What about the new Council that has it's power thanks to my actions directly (or indirectly I suppose)? What about public lash for me because I comitted genocide? Fist had no mafia friends that come after me? That random guy I kill doesn't have family that can hate me for it? I can come up with tons of examples where there can be renegade content.

Another point is that from meta-game perspective you know the paragon decision will turn up to be the right one. Releasing criminals and they turn reformed, the Rachni queen turns out to be good etc. I'm not arguing against the morality of those choices or if you should make them. I'm arguing that one path is consistently right from a meta-game perspective where the other path is consistenly presented as wrong or evil despite the motivations our Shepards act with. Everyone post-SM will say keeping the Collector base is wrong, even team mates who previously were supportive of that action. I may have sacrificed the Council for purely military tactics, not because I wanted create human domination. Of course everyone thinks I've killed them personally. You keep the Collector base and now suddently Cerberus is evil so you likely get no benefit from it (again speculation, might be wrong once I play ME3). I just don't like how every renegade action is rail-roaded to be evil or wrong. I see renegade as the path on which Shepard sacrifices his morality, soul if you want to call it that way and a piece of herself in order to achieve the greater good. I realize other people play renegade maybe purely for fun or to be deuschbags or whatever reasons but last I checked this isn't dark side vs light side and I'm not playing KotoR.

Simple fact is you're not just having an opinion on what you know so far, you're basing an opinion on complete ignorance which is never a good thing. You made a definitive statement "ME2 is pointless in terms of ME3" rather than a tentative one like "ME2 seems to be pointless in terms of ME3" and explain with 'based on what we've seen so far'. You were pretty quick to jump the gun, I'm simply calling you on that. 

Also, Renegade and Paragon is supposed to be lightside vs darkside. That's why Renegade characters have glowing red eyes and scars to make them look evil, they paint the Renegade to be the douche bag who gets the job done and to hell with the consequences. If you want to be "right" then I guess you think Paragon is the way to go. We don't know how some choices are actually going to play out though, the Rachni decision may actually turn out to be a hinderance for the Paragon path with benefits for the Renegade. The Paragon path is for people who want to feel that glory and heroism and the Renegade path is just that, a Renegade path look up the word. If you want to feel better I think you need to take the neutral route, that's the route Bioware actually canonically said their ideal Shepard walks. Don't go the outlaw rebel way if you don't like the way Outlaw consequences play out. 

[Undertone]

Well I must admit my grammar is far from perfect, I should have added should.

To quote:
"I've got no vocational skills! I don't mean to impose but I am the Ocean".

And no, the devs themselves have stated on occasions that they do not seek to have dark vs light approach but difference in the method. Unfortunately I simply don't have the time to back that up with quotes and stuff so I suppose you'll have to simply take me on my word.

And although I like the scars and the eyes even I will claim that they are bull****. Morality affects your appearance now, it's ridiculous. I don't want to be "right". To me Shepard is just another human being capable of mistakes. I don't want all my choices to be the "right" choices from meta-game perspective. Indeed you are right however that with ME3 still in development I don't know how the Rachni decision will turn out. I'm willing to bet 10 bucks though that it will benefit the paragons

The idea behind renegade isn't in the literal sense of the word.Otherwise Shepard would have never made it to the rank he/she has and probably would have been hanged for mutiny on day 1. Another problem is that the neutral path is as it stands messed up. Because of the way persuasion works in ME2. It's tied to the total number of paragon/renegade points. It's not warm water I'm inventing - everyone on this forum knows the morality system in ME2 is screwed up. In ME1 it was a skill as it should have been so you can roleplay the character you want to play.

Not to derail the thread even further - what do you guys think is a credible way for TIM and Cerberus to attack Shepard if he/she is renegade and through out the entire ME2 helped Cerberus, assisted them and gave the Base to them. Zulu already gave a possible reason, that it might be a front for other aliens to cooperate I suppose.

Modifié par Undertone, 05 mai 2011 - 11:29 .

[Phaedon]

Fixers0 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

ACT 2 introduces themes that will be dominant in the third act (genophage, geth-quarian conflict, TIM etc), maintains and further explores the overreaching plot (Reapers actually carry genetic goo, and they try to retake the Citadel by creating a new vanguard, Geth are split into factions) and collects the resources (Normandy SR2, squadmates, knowledge) that will be used in the third act.

That's not what the Narative told us.

Reasonable argument or no.

All of this has been included in ME2.

God, I love ME1 elitists trying to maintain troll threads.

[crimzontearz]

you will not like this undertone but I am fiarly certain TIM and cerberus attack Shepard again because of yet another critical failure at whatever it is they are planning this time....result is they are indoctrinated

sure, sounds kinda lame and forseeable but hey....they messed up pretty much any other major project aside for Lazarus and arguably they messed up that one too

[Therefore_I_Am]

Hudson said in the interview that all choices from both ME1 and ME2 are spilling forth into ME3. We shall see what happens.

[Last Vizard]

Fable 3 has done the best IMO, "good" guys get everyone in the Kingdom killed (unless they use rent to save more than half) while the "bad" guy saves everyone. What BW needed was another system reset and more Gears of Effect TPS shooting elements to increase the amount of people who will buy ME 3.....

ME3BWdick: "sorry did we get some rpg in you TPS"

lets see what the Polish can do with the Witcher 2.

Modifié par Last Vizard, 06 mai 2011 - 09:07 .

[Last Vizard]

crimzontearz wrote...

you will not like this undertone but I am fiarly certain TIM and cerberus attack Shepard again because of yet another critical failure at whatever it is they are planning this time....result is they are indoctrinated

sure, sounds kinda lame and forseeable but hey....they messed up pretty much any other major project aside for Lazarus and arguably they messed up that one too

How could they stuff up Cerberus so much then expect us to take them seriously as a bad guy?

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

If it requires a seperate payment for the content, it's a seperate instalment, as far as I'm concerned.

When the content no longer is contingent upon my owning a copy of Mass Effect 2, then I will agree with you. Throne of Bhaal requires Baldur's Gate II. The Frozen Throne requires Warcraft III. Bringing down the Sky requires Mass Effect 1. Are you paying separately? Yes, but you might as well regard the alternate appearance pack as a separate instalment; it all still requires that you play Mass Effect 2.

Personally I'd rather not believe that I paid full price for 3/4 of a game.  But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

And yet Obi-Wan died in Episode IV. In other words, Yoda was an ass pull (as was Vader being Luke's father). Episode V's plot could have gone in twenty different directions, depending on how it was handled. In Episode V, Luke's Jedi training could have been completely abandoned due to lack of a teacher.

But Star Wars wasn't Obi-Wan's story.  Luke was the main character.  Whatever directions were tossed abou as ideas it, it was pretty clear from the get-go that Luke was going to become a Jedi, one way or another.  What Luke did not do was freeze to death on Hoth, get revived by a Hutt crime lord and spend Episode V wandering the galaxy righting wrongs.  He spent the movie learning to be a Jedi, how to face Vader on even terms, and the dangers of the Dark Side. 

Although I did read an interesting what if-style comic where he did die on Hoth...

From the sound of things, ME3's gonna have to pull a double duty to wrap things up next game.

Modifié par iakus, 05 mai 2011 - 08:18 .

[Fixers0]

Phaedon wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

ACT 2 introduces themes that will be dominant in the third act (genophage, geth-quarian conflict, TIM etc), maintains and further explores the overreaching plot (Reapers actually carry genetic goo, and they try to retake the Citadel by creating a new vanguard, Geth are split into factions) and collects the resources (Normandy SR2, squadmates, knowledge) that will be used in the third act.

That's not what the Narative told us.

Reasonable argument or no.

All of this has been included in ME2.

God, I love ME1 elitists trying to maintain troll threads.

I think my argument was quite clear.

But since it's obvious  that you didn't even understand my argument i'm not even going to try explain it to you.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Personally I'd rather not believe that I paid full price for 3/4 of a game. 

It depends on how you're defining 'old game'. Game I dislike /= 3/4 of a game. Games, like all things, have flaws. Optional content which helps to rectify those flaws makes the game better.

But the difference between what you are calling a separate instalment is that if you actually want to access Lair of the Shadowbroker, you have to play through a substantial amount of Mass Effect 2 (up through Horizon); it's not even offered from the get go in the manner that I can start Frozen Throne any time after installation with Warcraft III. So calling it a separate instalment when it cannot even be played 'separately' is somewhat of a misnomer.

But Star Wars wasn't Obi-Wan's story.  Luke was the main character.  Whatever directions were tossed abou as ideas it, it was pretty clear from the get-go that Luke was going to become a Jedi, one way or another.  What Luke did not do was freeze to death on Hoth, get revived by a Hutt crime lord and spend Episode V wandering the galaxy righting wrongs.  He spent the movie learning to be a Jedi, how to face Vader on even terms, and the dangers of the Dark Side. 

Considering that Episode IV ends with Luke's teacher dead, I wouldn't call that 'pretty clear'. Yes, Obi-Wan has his one-liner regarding the force being with Luke. But what you just described was the direction Episode V pretty much took, at least as it pertained to Han and Leia.

Now, was Luke going to somehow train himself? Was he going to slump into depression about being the last potential Jedi in the galaxy? Did we even know that Luke had to confront Vader directly? Episode V could have taken a million different directions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 mai 2011 - 12:49 .

[ExtremeOne]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

If it requires a seperate payment for the content, it's a seperate instalment, as far as I'm concerned.

When the content no longer is contingent upon my owning a copy of Mass Effect 2, then I will agree with you. Throne of Bhaal requires Baldur's Gate II. The Frozen Throne requires Warcraft III. Bringing down the Sky requires Mass Effect 1. Are you paying separately? Yes, but you might as well regard the alternate appearance pack as a separate instalment; it all still requires that you play Mass Effect 2.

Personally I'd rather not believe that I paid full price for 3/4 of a game.  But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

And yet Obi-Wan died in Episode IV. In other words, Yoda was an ass pull (as was Vader being Luke's father). Episode V's plot could have gone in twenty different directions, depending on how it was handled. In Episode V, Luke's Jedi training could have been completely abandoned due to lack of a teacher.

But Star Wars wasn't Obi-Wan's story.  Luke was the main character.  Whatever directions were tossed abou as ideas it, it was pretty clear from the get-go that Luke was going to become a Jedi, one way or another.  What Luke did not do was freeze to death on Hoth, get revived by a Hutt crime lord and spend Episode V wandering the galaxy righting wrongs.  He spent the movie learning to be a Jedi, how to face Vader on even terms, and the dangers of the Dark Side. 

Although I did read an interesting what if-style comic where he did die on Hoth...

From the sound of things, ME3's gonna have to pull a double duty to wrap things up next game.

 



Star Wars has a better story than ME will ever have . But Bioware made ME 2 pointless by turning Cerberus evil in 3 . For no logicaal reason at all  

[Someone With Mass]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Star Wars has a better story than ME will ever have . But Bioware made ME 2 pointless by turning Cerberus evil in 3 . For no logicaal reason at all  

First off, tell that to the prequels.

Second off, shut the **** up and quit whining about things you clearly have no knowledge of.

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Star Wars has a better story than ME will ever have . But Bioware made ME 2 pointless by turning Cerberus evil in 3 . For no logicaal reason at all  

How can you know if the reason is logical or not if you don't even know what the reason is? 

Modifié par didymos1120, 07 mai 2011 - 02:03 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Star Wars has a better story than ME will ever have . But Bioware made ME 2 pointless by turning Cerberus evil in 3 . For no logicaal reason at all 

Call me a weirdo, but I muchly prefer Mass Effect's story over Star Wars'. It's more in line with my preference for sci-fi storytelling.