462 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

You didn't address any of my rebuttals...

You never really presented any. All you did was say the writing is good because these trops are used elsewhere. That's the only point you've actually made, and it was a bad one.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I haven't played that mission in a while... is there a way out once you've started shooting mercs? You keep mentioning the ability to decide to stop, and I'm curious as to what point in the mission you are referring to?

Use your damn head and figure out what I'm talking about. I'm not going to tell you because it should be self evident considering the nature of the debate here.

I don't think it is.

It's possible to get into the warehouse without shooting at anyone, and once you're there it's impossible to leave, as far as I'm aware.

Saying "you should retreat" is as irrelevant and meaningless as saying "you should just use traq ammo on everybody." If there was tranq ammo in the game, maybe I'd use it. If there was a way to retreat, maybe the decision not to retreat would be relevant. If I had a magic pixie wand that I could tap on the Reapers to turn them into bunnies not using it would be foolish.

But none of those things exist, as far as I'm aware. Though if tranq ammo existed I'd probably use it like 90% of the time, and just drop BOATLOADS Of wanted murderes off a C-Sec every day.

So far the only rebuttal you've been able to offer for my "decide to go help your friend, learn new information, update your decision" argument is that killing all the mercs on the way is bad. Well, there's literally no way out. They locked the door behind me when I got to that warehouse (or whatever the actual thing that prevents you from leaving is. Point is you're trapped in a room with dudes shooting at you.)

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

[Nashiktal]

Problem is Saphra, you can't seem to separate game design from the story writing. If you actually did have a choice to leave the base after the first merc encounter your argument would have weight, however you can't so your point is invalidated.

[Leonia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Problem is Saphra, you can't seem to separate game design from the story writing. If you actually did have a choice to leave the base after the first merc encounter your argument would have weight, however you can't so your point is invalidated.

I've said this before but obviously I need to say it again. Good writing will blend seemlessly with game design.

It's not the quality of the writing that's the problem. It's the difference between reading a book and playing a video game. There is no RPG that is immune to the conflict between story and gameplay segregation. At some point, you have to just accept that video games are not virtual novels.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Problem is Saphra, you can't seem to separate game design from the story writing. If you actually did have a choice to leave the base after the first merc encounter your argument would have weight, however you can't so your point is invalidated.

I've said this before but obviously I need to say it again. Good writing will blend seemlessly with game design.

Ok, would this entire scenario be fixed for you if, after the mercs started shooting at you, Shepard ran back to the door and said "Crap, we're stuck, can't retreat!"?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 07:07 .

[Nashiktal]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Problem is Saphra, you can't seem to separate game design from the story writing. If you actually did have a choice to leave the base after the first merc encounter your argument would have weight, however you can't so your point is invalidated.

I've said this before but obviously I need to say it again. Good writing will blend seemlessly with game design.

Unfortunately that is not the case here, and your point is still invalid.

[CroGamer002]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Problem is Saphra, you can't seem to separate game design from the story writing. If you actually did have a choice to leave the base after the first merc encounter your argument would have weight, however you can't so your point is invalidated.

I've said this before but obviously I need to say it again. Good writing will blend seemlessly with game design.

Ok, would this entire scenario be fixed for you if, after the mercs started shooting at you, Shepard ran back to the door and said "Crap, we're stuck, can't retreat!"?

Simple.

[CroGamer002]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ok, would this entire scenario be fixed for you if, after the mercs started shooting at you, Shepard ran back to the door and said "Crap, we're stuck, can't retreat!"?

It would help. A better solution, as I explained many pages back, is Garrus not saying upfront that he wants to kill Sidonis and only making this decision at the end. Thus catching Shepard by surprise.

You're mixing Garrus LM with Zaeed's.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

That is your opinion. It doesn't make it fact.

[AngryFrozenWater]

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

[Leonia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

It's not the quality of the writing that's the problem.

Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

That's just like, your opinion of the writing.

Anyway, I'd like to see an example of a game that has seamlessly perfect writing and gameplay that are impossible to distinguish between. The video game format only allows for so much in terms of story-telling.

[CroGamer002]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

Paragon is not suppose to be a damn saint.

[Leonia]

Mesina2 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

Paragon is not suppose to be a damn saint.

And even if we were, I gave a lengthy example of a paragon choosing the renegade path in this mission.

[Nashiktal]

Saphra Deden wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

It's not the quality of the writing that's the problem.

Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ok, would this entire scenario be fixed for you if, after the mercs started shooting at you, Shepard ran back to the door and said "Crap, we're stuck, can't retreat!"?

It would help. A better solution, as I explained many pages back, is Garrus not saying upfront that he wants to kill Sidonis and only making this decision at the end. Thus catching Shepard by surprise.

You see this helps me see your side of the argument, and at the same time you offering a solution to what you deem a problem helps me either come up with ways to support your argument or provide a proper counterargument. Not to mention it turns unsupported grumbling into proper criticism.

You should do this earlier.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nashiktal wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

It's not the quality of the writing that's the problem.

Oh but it is. It is the bad writing that makes the mission really crappy if your Shepard is a Paragon.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ok, would this entire scenario be fixed for you if, after the mercs started shooting at you, Shepard ran back to the door and said "Crap, we're stuck, can't retreat!"?

It would help. A better solution, as I explained many pages back, is Garrus not saying upfront that he wants to kill Sidonis and only making this decision at the end. Thus catching Shepard by surprise.

You see this helps me see your side of the argument, and at the same time you offering a solution to what you deem a problem helps me either come up with ways to support your argument or provide a proper counterargument. Not to mention it turns unsupported grumbling into proper criticism.

You should do this earlier.

Admittedly, he did.

The problem with that is that it undercuts an important aspect of Garrus's character: he is honest with Shepard. He trusts Shepard, whether or not Shepard deserves it. Having him suddenly decide to lie... that's far more ridiculous than Shepard killing a dozen mercs, which is something she does every day.

The central question of the thread remains this:  "when is it wrong to kill someone in the context of the Mass Effect universe?" Or rather "when does a Renegade think it is appropriate to kill someone, and how does this differ from how a Paragon thinks?"

In my opinion, when it comes to random mercs, a Paragon can kill them when they pose an immediate threat, or if they seem likely to cause a threat to me or someone else in the future.

I don't know what Saphra thinks is appropriate for a Paragon versus a Renegade.

[Someone With Mass]

leonia42 wrote...
And even if we were, I gave a lengthy example of a paragon choosing the renegade path in this mission.

I let Garrus shoot Sidonis all the time until a few months ago, and I was rather content with that. Mostly because I didn't know better.

Since then I've been mixing it up a bit. 

[Nashiktal]

Wouldn't the central argument of when its right to kill someone in the ME universe be directly tied to defining Paragon and Renegade? Honestly the P and R system is so all over the place that calling someone a paragon or renegade doesnt mean anything outside of having blue or red in the bar under your Shepherd.

[Ottemis]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

You've been dead for 2 years. Stuff happens, it explodes, characters change. Shep might have stoold still, but everyone else hasen't, and they've had to deal with him/her not being there anymore.

Modifié par Ottemis, 09 mai 2011 - 07:45 .

[Nashiktal]

Ottemis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

For me Garrus' loyalty mission is the least favorite. I think he does things there that I was trying to steer him away from in ME1. I felt there was nothing left of the Garrus I knew in ME1. I do that mission for the XP and to end the game properly. It's not that I feel Garrus in ME2 isn't well portrayed, it's more that Garrus has continuity problems.

You've been dead for 2 years. Stuff happens, it explodes, characters change. Shep might have stoold still, but everyone else hasen't, and they've had to deal with him/her not being there anymore.

I don't like how you just portrayed Garrus.

[Ottemis]

You who? If me, check page 15

Modifié par Ottemis, 09 mai 2011 - 07:53 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nashiktal wrote...

Wouldn't the central argument of when its right to kill someone in the ME universe be directly tied to defining Paragon and Renegade? Honestly the P and R system is so all over the place that calling someone a paragon or renegade doesnt mean anything outside of having blue or red in the bar under your Shepherd.

Yes. Well sort of. Maybe?

My point is that I have a different conception of what the guiding rules are than Saphra apparently has.

When I play as a Paragon, I kill if killing that person or thing is likely to cause the galaxy to be a little better, or a little safer. I kill in self-defense. Occasionally, I act as the Space Cops and kill criminals who cannot be captured, or whom there is no way to prosecute.

When I play as a Renegade, I kill if it will directly benefit me, or the group I am working for, or if it is particuarly amusing.

In both of these systems, killing mercs is good: for Paragon me, becase these are dangerous people, or because it is self defense. For Renegade me, killing them gets me what I want, or to my next objective, or it's fun.

In both of these systems, killing an unrepentant Sidonis is also acceptable, as he was essentially an accomplict to multiple murders. But just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it's required, especially if he does feel remorse. Then I have the option of mercy, because I can decide whether or not he is likely to hurt others similarly in the future.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 08:00 .

[Leonia]

Thing is, unless you're playing a pure paragon or a pure renegade, there are always going to be exceptions to the rules. And even pure paragon/renegades aren't entiely consistent. The system isn't as black and white as it would like to be.

But my logic in terms of what is paragon and what is renegade is more or less similar to CGG's. Except I would take out the renegades killing for amusement part. I don't think amusement really factors into things.