904 réponses à ce sujet

[alx119]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Your argument is amorphous and ambiguous. Make up your mind: are we addressing why Renegades can't expect dead people to contribute, or are we addressing why Renegades can't expect people they (may or may not) have been dicks to will contribute?

'Being nice' is not and never has been the same as 'making friends', nor have you considered the other aspect in the choice context: that they people you kill aren't prospective allies, but potent potential foes. At which point, them surviving just means they come to knife you in the front or back.

Nor, mind you, does your counter-argument about how they'll need their own resources to fight for themselves become any less true if you were nice to them before. Trust or not, it still remains the bear and dog delimma.

In the context of Shepard's quest to fight the Reapers, Earth is the only plausible decisive place to fight the Reapers. It is, quite literally, the only place they've shown any inclination or desire to fight over and defend once they beat it. For every other planet in the galaxy, the Reapers have no basis to stick around for any decisive fleet battle that starts turning against them. Only Earth, and only in terms of the Reapers interest in Humans, gives any of the galaxy a basis for hoping to be able to engage the Reapers in any sort of battle on the Organic's terms. You go to Earth, you'll find Reapers to kill. Anywhere else? You can only find them so long as they care to stick around.

My apologies if I did not make my point clear.

It's a 50/50, they may come and knife you, or just come and help you. It's as simple as that, but if  you let them die, well then there's just that, death. A high possibility of alliances with a high possibility of foes is better than just 0 possibilities of any of those.

Well, that's just me assuming, that if they are attacking Earth, and you're in an outside colony, you'd likely just bunker down and use your resources for yourself and try to survive. But if you trust those resources to someone who has proven to be of trust, to someone who has proven to be a "hero", there may be a chance for your survival.
It's up to you.

Day to day people don't have life-or-death decisions with the lives of millions at stake.

Generosity at scale isn't a survival trait. Civilizations don't grow by dying for others.

So what's your point then? 

That's a certaintude only possible by metagaming. No certainly of knowledge of the possible salvation of the Council had the 5th Fleet moved in exists, while the very real presence of the Reapers now just underscores how necessary the Alliance focusing on Sovereign may have been.

The other races can't know that there was any viable alternate reality in which the Council was saved and Sovereign destroyed. Blaming the Humans for the death of the Council in the face of the Reapers (who actually killed the Council) is, at it's heart, foolish.

I never said it was a logical reaction, but is the reaction you get, people simply blames humanity for the banishment of the council, and, the fact that the new council is all human, doesn't really look any better for humanity. Foolish? I agree, but it's pretty understandable nevertheless.

Well, I suppose I can't argue like that. If your Shepard doesn't think like a soldier... well, so then he/she doesn't, and more's the pity. Now, personally, I don't see the mindset of a civilian as a virtue for a soldier, but-

Shepard's a soldier, but I, Alx, am a normal person, and I wouldn't dare to consider myself a soldier, since I have not done any military training, and "imagining" how a soldier lives would be quite fake from me, since, to really understand, I THINK, their lifes, you should be one yourself.
You have to experience it to know what being a soldier is like. You can belive you are one, for the sake of gaming, but the reality is that you are not, or at least, and pardon me if you really had military training of any kind, I know I'm not. I'm a simple student.
So, what I want to say with this, is that I'll play (at least the "for reals" game) as myself, and Shepard will be a reflection of my feelings towards each situation. I find no pleasure on puting myself in the foots of a soldier, because I ain't one. I, in the game of Mass Effect, am Commander Shepard, and I do what my heart tells me to do.

...
sorry for the corniness.. xD

[Rip504]

So you ran your mouth and proved nothing? You can not expect minor plot events to be carried over. Bioware informed us of this. So complaining about minor plot points is a waste of time and pointless. "killing Shiala, killing Fist, killing Rana, and killing Giana Parsini" Minor Pointless plot events. That all were resolved in ME1.


I for one think the Rachni will help,doesn't make it facts. Your stating the Rachni as facts when that is simply wrong. ( The Paragon got the Rachni boo hoo. The Renegade got Fed over Boo Hoo.)The lore may indicate,but that is not what you stated in previous post.No matter how much cute typing you do,you are wrong,proved nothing,and continue to state your opinions and assumptions as facts. I have no problem with Opinions,just ignorantly wrong opinions stated as fact.W.E. you are a waste of time peace out.

Modifié par Rip504, 25 mai 2011 - 12:17 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

These arguments never seem to go anywhere. These people just refuse to see renegades as anything more than violent xenophobic bastards that want nothing more than to wreak havoc. Certainly it is possible to play a renegade that way, just always pick the lower options and Shepard will be a real piece of work. The thing is, Bioware doesn't force us to just pick one path at the beginning and always choose the renegade/paragon/neutral options from there on. What about the renegades who save the council because they think the DA could perhaps be useful in the battle (and better relations with the aliens is a good thing too) but kill the rachni queen because they don't want to risk hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives on the chance that she could turn on us?

Its not like killing the Rachni Queen is in any way the more pragmatic decision, choosing to not trust the word of a mind-controlling bug whose species has a history of extreme violence and aggression with no regard for diplomacy. Oh, but they were just controlled by the reapers! Therefore, they were totally not responsible for their actions and I must take the word of this thing I just met which happens to be stuck in a death-trap. There is no way the Queen would ever lie to me out of self preservation.

Its absurd that people can really look at it like this:
Kill queen just to be a xenophobic angry douche that likes killing things
OR
Spare queen because its the right decision.

Renegade ≠ Sith
While it is possible to play a pretty nasty renegade, that doesn't mean thats what being renegade is all about.

[HogarthHughes 3]

As for "extra" content that renegades seem to miss out on, I'll just let Saphra Deden say it.  If you don't see the logic in this argument then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Saphra Deden wrote...

There is no dilemma! There can be a bad consequence for SHEPARD that still provides additional content for the PLAYER!

The problem with Renegade choices is that when you import them you often wind up with nothing. It isn't a disaster, it isn't a success. Just nothing happens. This spoils the point of importing in the first place. Like I just said.

Now for story reasons Paragon decisions always having positive effects for Shepard is annoying, yeah, but it is much less of an issue than the LACK OF CONTENT.

If, say, freeing the rachni queen had caused them to attack in ME2, forcing you to do a mission where you fight rachni, that would be a bad thing for Shepard, the character. However the player would benefit with an additional mission to play, meaning more experience points and maybe an additional upgrade. You can reward the player no matter how their decision affects the game world.

[Dean_the_Young]

alx119 wrote...

It's a 50/50, they may come and knife you, or just come and help you. It's as simple as that, but if  you let them die, well then there's just that, death. A high possibility of alliances with a high possibility of foes is better than just 0 possibilities of any of those.

50/50 is something you pulled out of your rear, and you and I both know it. You're also broadly missing the other aspect of your call, and that's if someone moves against you at the worst time. There is no 'high possibility of alliance' with the people you spare: you're sparing them. You aren't swearing them to your service, you aren't getting even verbal promises of significant aid later. You are, at the bottom of it, taking actions without any reasonable expectation of aid in the future. You have no basis for believing Shiala will be sincere. You have no basis to believe the Rachni Queen will help, as opposed to be like the other 99.99% of Rachni ever encountered.

Well, that's just me assuming, that if they are attacking Earth, and you're in an outside colony, you'd likely just bunker down and use your resources for yourself and try to survive. But if you trust those resources to someone who has proven to be of trust, to someone who has proven to be a "hero", there may be a chance for your survival.
It's up to you.

Uh, no. That's not how leaders make decisions for their people. You don't hand over the lives of your people simply because you like someone or not. You do it because handing over those people helps you or not, regardless of whether you trust them. Common causes are cemented by need, not friendship,

So what's your point then?

That your argument about how being nice is good enough for day to day is irrelevant in context, of course.

I never said it was a logical reaction, but is the reaction you get, people simply blames humanity for the banishment of the council, and, the fact that the new council is all human, doesn't really look any better for humanity. Foolish? I agree, but it's pretty understandable nevertheless.

Not really, since it requires an assumption of stupidity in both directions: in the Renegade direction, that civilizations with thousands of years of experience will refuse to help you help themselves survive if you didn't side with them in favor of looking out for themselves, and in the Paragon direction that civilizations will stop looking out for themselves if you did something nice for them in the past. Both are pretty silly, and selectively so as a double standard.

Shepard's a soldier, but I, Alx, am a normal person, and I wouldn't dare to consider myself a soldier, since I have not done any military training, and "imagining" how a soldier lives would be quite fake from me, since, to really understand, I THINK, their lifes, you should be one yourself.
You have to experience it to know what being a soldier is like. You can belive you are one, for the sake of gaming, but the reality is that you are not, or at least, and pardon me if you really had military training of any kind, I know I'm not. I'm a simple student.
So, what I want to say with this, is that I'll play (at least the "for reals" game) as myself, and Shepard will be a reflection of my feelings towards each situation. I find no pleasure on puting myself in the foots of a soldier, because I ain't one. I, in the game of Mass Effect, am Commander Shepard, and I do what my heart tells me to do.

...
sorry for the corniness.. xD

Sure. Just expect to be challenged for unreasonable assertions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rip504 wrote...

W.E. you are a waste of time peace out.

Charming. Gotta respect people who go through all the effort to have the last word like that.

[alx119]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
50/50 is something you pulled out of your rear, and you and I both know it. You're also broadly missing the other aspect of your call, and that's if someone moves against you at the worst time. There is no 'high possibility of alliance' with the people you spare: you're sparing them. You aren't swearing them to your service, you aren't getting even verbal promises of significant aid later. You are, at the bottom of it, taking actions without any reasonable expectation of aid in the future. You have no basis for believing Shiala will be sincere. You have no basis to believe the Rachni Queen will help, as opposed to be like the other 99.99% of Rachni ever encountered.

It's a 50/50, if you don't know how the other thinks, then you get a 50% of possibilities that, 1. it will betray you 2. it will help you. If we get onto details, of course you can unbalance it to one or another and make a judge about it, or risk it at your own will, still if you know nothing about that friend or foe, the probabilities are 50/50. I'm talking in generals, for instance, Shiala's word is more than enough to tip that 50/50 onto a 75% that she's going to help somehow in ME3 if you were good to her and Zhu's Hope. Why? Simple trust.

My basis is simply, their word. It's about trust both ways. They trusted me, I will trust them. If its foolish to you, alright I respect it, but to me it's a risk am willing to take for the sake of peace. Better than going killing everyone because they are potential threats... if I were like that, then no one would be alive.

Uh, no. That's not how leaders make decisions for their people. You don't hand over the lives of your people simply because you like someone or not. You do it because handing over those people helps you or not, regardless of whether you trust them. Common causes are cemented by need, not friendship,

Exactly, and, as I said, if you prove them that you can be of help that you're a bloody hero, they may well think that you are of help to all.

That your argument about how being nice is good enough for day to day is irrelevant in context, of course.

Point taken, then.

Not really, since it requires an assumption of stupidity in both directions: in the Renegade direction, that civilizations with thousands of years of experience will refuse to help you help themselves survive if you didn't side with them in favor of looking out for themselves, and in the Paragon direction that civilizations will stop looking out for themselves if you did something nice for them in the past. Both are pretty silly, and selectively so as a double standard.

In both ways, civilizations will look for themselves, call it selfishness if you will. But in one, they'll help you, in the other they may refuse, or just help out of desperation. If that's fine with you, alright, but I prefer them willing to help because I forged alliances in the past, and gave humanity a good name, not a name to fear. That always brings troubles.

Sure. Just expect to be challenged for unreasonable assertions.

I already expect them. And hard or not, I will overcome anything. And will bring a damn happy end to the godamn galaxy, I assure you that.

Modifié par alx119, 25 mai 2011 - 01:25 .

[alx119]

thurmanator692 wrote...

*Sigh* I used to be paragon, then i met the other paragons.

For people who insist on taking the 'moral high ground', you guys have REALLY short tempers. Paragons should totally get a little worked over in ME3. why?
because paragon=/=right and renegade=/=wrong

Paragons. expect the rachni decision to screw you a little bit in the end. If you don't mind spoilers at all, then let me tell you that i've read somwhere (escapist, i think) that there are going to be Rachni-based husks that sound like they're gonna be hella hard to kill. Renegades wont get this for obvious reasons. In fact, if all goes as i forsee, ME3 is going to be kinda switched around. Paragons will be given a lot more to fight, because their choices created more potential enemies than the renegades did. Renegades, however should be given more cameos, and possibly cool new toys, due to the Collector base

If this happens, I will be happy  
It's a realistic slap in the face, and I'd love to see it. It's a bit like: This is what you get for being a bloody saint.
Though more than one paragon will probably go renegade if that happens XD

[HogarthHughes 3]

alx119 wrote...

If this happens, I will be happy
It's a realistic slap in the face, and I'd love to see it.  It's a bit like: This is what you get for being a bloody saint.
Though more than one paragon will probably go renegade if that happens XD

Reading this makes me happy, a reasonable paragon!  Apologies if I came across as condescending (if you even read my post), I just get annoyed seeing drivel like this stuff below.

Rip504 wrote...

You chose to kill the Queen,commit genocide,you deserve nothing. Why is that so hard to see? My Renagade Shepard spared the Queen in one of my playthroughs. Now my Renagade Shepard has this Queen on my side. You don't like the outcome of your choices,change them. I say the outcomes reflect the choice well.Who displays hate or dislike for Shepard solely based on Paragon/Renagade ? As I said before I kill to be done with them,why mention it in ME2?

[crimzontearz]

SIGHS

first off, Bioware is not gonna create a whole enemy type that half if not more their fanbase is not going to even see. Even tho I like the idea, mind you.

Secondly, I do agree renegade "outcomes" are not always handled well and for god's sake some of the paragon decisions SHOULD have negative consequences (I was waiting for a news report about another human colony getting blown up by Balak after I let him go)....yet it is all a matter of decisions ultimately (inside and outside the game). A Priori we know by now how the system works just like a priori (now) we know how loyalties and deaths in the SM work and we play consequently to get the outcome we desire. Sure it is not perfect and should be touched on but at least we know!

with that in mind you HAVE to admitt some of the renegade choices are so ridiculous they do warrant some sort of backlash.

Look at Feros, no seriously...scientists tell you "the colonists are OK they can be saved and cured just knock em out". The renegade choice? "yeah, we are gonna kill them all just to be safe"...WTF? it wasn't even "hell we are not sure, if we are wrong they might contaminate the galaxy". The renegade just took the lives of a dozen innocent people for NO real reason.

The 2 missiles mission in ME2? Choice, save hundreds of people OR save a spaceport.......is that really a choice? would anyone but a sociopath consciously choose to kill the freaking civilians to save an infrastructure?

It's not like BDTS where you are faced with a REAL dilemma "save the civilians now and risk the lives of more people later or let them die but insure a terrorist will never kill again"

now THAT was a real renegade vs paragon (Idealism VS cynism) choice..but how many of them do we really have in ME?

[Labrev]

punishin' paragonz.

[crimzontearz]

thurmanator692 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

SIGHS

first off, Bioware is not gonna create a whole enemy type that half if not more their fanbase is not going to even see. Even tho I like the idea, mind you.

Secondly, I do agree renegade "outcomes" are not always handled well and for god's sake some of the paragon decisions SHOULD have negative consequences (I was waiting for a news report about another human colony getting blown up by Balak after I let him go)....yet it is all a matter of decisions ultimately (inside and outside the game). A Priori we know by now how the system works just like a priori (now) we know how loyalties and deaths in the SM work and we play consequently to get the outcome we desire. Sure it is not perfect and should be touched on but at least we know!

with that in mind you HAVE to admitt some of the renegade choices are so ridiculous they do warrant some sort of backlash.

Look at Feros, no seriously...scientists tell you "the colonists are OK they can be saved and cured just knock em out". The renegade choice? "yeah, we are gonna kill them all just to be safe"...WTF? it wasn't even "hell we are not sure, if we are wrong they might contaminate the galaxy". The renegade just took the lives of a dozen innocent people for NO real reason.

The 2 missiles mission in ME2? Choice, save hundreds of people OR save a spaceport.......is that really a choice? would anyone but a sociopath consciously choose to kill the freaking civilians to save an infrastructure?

It's not like BDTS where you are faced with a REAL dilemma "save the civilians now and risk the lives of more people later or let them die but insure a terrorist will never kill again"

now THAT was a real renegade vs paragon (Idealism VS cynism) choice..but how many of them do we really have in ME?

I'm like 98% sure it's been confirmed (the rachni thing)
And to be fair about the colonists, i totally didn't realize that my grenades weren't equipped with the nerve gas when i started chucking them around.
I think the two missiles decision was a little idealism vs cynicism, as the space port was what the colony's income depended on

the existence of those enemies has been confirmed..the fact that they exist only in playthroughs where the queen is alive? no....never been stated

About the grenades, well..uhm....then you did not choose to kill them you simply made an OOC mistake after ordering your squadmates to keep them alive...."reload" is your friend, no one will blame you


Cynism =/= sociopathy

[InvincibleHero]

crimzontearz wrote...

SIGHS

first off, Bioware is not gonna create a whole enemy type that half if not more their fanbase is not going to even see. Even tho I like the idea, mind you.

Secondly, I do agree renegade "outcomes" are not always handled well and for god's sake some of the paragon decisions SHOULD have negative consequences (I was waiting for a news report about another human colony getting blown up by Balak after I let him go)....yet it is all a matter of decisions ultimately (inside and outside the game). A Priori we know by now how the system works just like a priori (now) we know how loyalties and deaths in the SM work and we play consequently to get the outcome we desire. Sure it is not perfect and should be touched on but at least we know!

with that in mind you HAVE to admitt some of the renegade choices are so ridiculous they do warrant some sort of backlash.

Look at Feros, no seriously...scientists tell you "the colonists are OK they can be saved and cured just knock em out". The renegade choice? "yeah, we are gonna kill them all just to be safe"...WTF? it wasn't even "hell we are not sure, if we are wrong they might contaminate the galaxy". The renegade just took the lives of a dozen innocent people for NO real reason.

The 2 missiles mission in ME2? Choice, save hundreds of people OR save a spaceport.......is that really a choice? would anyone but a sociopath consciously choose to kill the freaking civilians to save an infrastructure?

It's not like BDTS where you are faced with a REAL dilemma "save the civilians now and risk the lives of more people later or let them die but insure a terrorist will never kill again"

now THAT was a real renegade vs paragon (Idealism VS cynism) choice..but how many of them do we really have in ME?

Nope quite simple saving the people the colony dies. Without a spaceport most of them will likely die shortly after your feel good Shepard leaves after saving a few hundred. It isn't even clear if more people are at home or working at the spaceport and support businesses that get nuked. So casualties could be higher for no reason. if you bothered to read the mission end it is quite apparent the colony is toast without a spaceport and the company financing it will not install another as it is not worth it. So all those people will die without resupplying. They are at the mercy of any spacefaring pirate probably fated for batarian slave camps. Still feel good about it.

[alx119]

thurmanator692 wrote...

I'm like 98% sure it's been confirmed (the rachni thing)
And to be fair about the colonists, i totally didn't realize that my grenades weren't equipped with the nerve gas when i started chucking them around.
I think the two missiles decision was a little idealism vs cynicism, as the space port was what the colony's income depended on

Just a quick comment on this, GOD ME TOO XD Stupid grenades I swear, and I didn't pay much attention in my first playthrough because I was streaming the game at the same time, and I was distracted, ended up killing all Feros, I FELT SO BAD when you report to the council that I shot down the connection with them. One of my worse outcomes on Feros so far god xD

/had to

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

Reading
this makes me happy, a reasonable paragon!  Apologies if I came across
as condescending (if you even read my post), I just get annoyed seeing
drivel like this stuff below.

I did read your post, and please, do not apologize, I understand your point of view and respect it by all means. I tend to lose myself in endless debates where no one can really say "I agree" because both points of view are completely valid quite often, so, no need for apologies ^^

And to add, my critiques against -some- renegades, are often focused on those who are a bit too extremists, to put it simple, renegades who are dicks. I've played as a renegade but being the sweetest to my allies, such as the crew, and Anderson, which meant I saved the council in all my playthroughs, since I saw too much invested from Anderson and even Udina to just throw it away. But still was firm and even rude at some points with people that were definately hostile with me. And what can I say, I enjoyed it quite a lot, and did not miss anything in particular on the other game.
I believe people, or at least those who complain, confuse themselves being dicks with being renegades. Hell I came to the theory that Paragon and Renegades are just the same, with different manners XD

[Seboist]

thurmanator692 wrote...

*Sigh* I used to be paragon, then i met the other paragons.

For people who insist on taking the 'moral high ground', you guys have REALLY short tempers. Paragons should totally get a little worked over in ME3. why?
because paragon=/=right and renegade=/=wrong

Paragons. expect the rachni decision to screw you a little bit in the end. If you don't mind spoilers at all, then let me tell you that i've read somwhere (escapist, i think) that there are going to be Rachni-based husks that sound like they're gonna be hella hard to kill. Renegades wont get this for obvious reasons. In fact, if all goes as i forsee, ME3 is going to be kinda switched around. Paragons will be given a lot more to fight, because their choices created more potential enemies than the renegades did. Renegades, however should be given more cameos, and possibly cool new toys, due to the Collector base

I really doubt we won't be seeing Rachni Husks even if we kill off the Queen given the fact that the "consequences" have largely been just cosmetic and that we're fighting Cerberus no matter what. What will happen is that a few lines willl be changed around and they'll be derived from Cerberus clones instead of the Queen's new younguns.

[Moiaussi]

alx119 wrote...

It's a 50/50, if you don't know how the other thinks, then you get a 50% of possibilities that, 1. it will betray you 2. it will help you.

It is only 50/50 if the results are 50/50. If you were to choose all paragon or all renegade, and the results are biased towards one or the other, it doesn't mean you will get things 50% right.

The assumption that you don't know how the other thinks is also not necessarily accurate. It assumes that there are no meaningful hints in information available to you.

Exactly, and, as I said, if you prove them that you can be of help that you're a bloody hero, they may well think that you are of help to all.

It isn't just a matter of proving you are a hero. Heroes have a bad habit of doing that they believe is 'the right thing' instead of what governments want them to do. Saren believed he was doing the right thing right up until the end, and was definately competent. Politics doesn't work that way. Politics isn't merely a matter of competence but of convincing people that your competence is useful to them. Saving the world will get you an audience, but  does not give you carte blanche.

The Rachni are a bit of a special case. They have reason to believe you regarding the Reapers by way of the experiments and interrogation of the queen. Also you didn't just win a battle for them, you spared their entire existance.

In contrast, if  'paragoned' Helena Blake reforms, but it doesn't mean she is suddenly likely to be a lot of use in the final battle. In fact, she might be more useful as a criminal leader.

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

I really doubt we won't be seeing Rachni Husks even if we kill off the Queen given the fact that the "consequences" have largely been just cosmetic and that we're fighting Cerberus no matter what. What will happen is that a few lines willl be changed around and they'll be derived from Cerberus clones instead of the Queen's new younguns.

Agreed. We know for a fact there were eggs shipped out and it is not a given they were all accounted for.

[alx119]

Moiaussi wrote...



It is only 50/50 if the results are 50/50. If you were to choose all paragon or all renegade, and the results are biased towards one or the other, it doesn't mean you will get things 50% right.

The assumption that you don't know how the other thinks is also not necessarily accurate. It assumes that there are no meaningful hints in information available to you.

It was just an overall example about a situation where you save someone who you do not know, or you pretend to know. Of course in game you should detect them hints, or clues that they aren't as bad as they think they are, one nice example is Sidonis in ME2, you do not know him, 50/50, keeping him alive will reward something, or become a thread, if he appears again, but then you know Garrus story, and if you go about revenge, you probably would kill him. But if you give him the oportunity, you see that he was not all about money, that he's paying for his mistake, and that he will make it up to Garrus.
You couldn't have really predict the situation, still it may reward you (or backfire). But if you kill it, well there's no reward, and no backfire.

I believe Paragon is about giving oportunities at a risk.
EDIT: And I'm gonna quote real quick Shepard as well on Sidoni's quest with Garrus, "You can't predict how people is going to react, but you can control how you'll respond. In the end, that's all that matters"

It isn't just a matter of proving you are a hero. Heroes have a bad habit of doing that they believe is 'the right thing' instead of what governments want them to do. Saren believed he was doing the right thing right up until the end, and was definately competent. Politics doesn't work that way. Politics isn't merely a matter of competence but of convincing people that your competence is useful to them. Saving the world will get you an audience, but  does not give you carte blanche.

The Rachni are a bit of a special case. They have reason to believe you regarding the Reapers by way of the experiments and interrogation of the queen. Also you didn't just win a battle for them, you spared their entire existance.

In contrast, if  'paragoned' Helena Blake reforms, but it doesn't mean she is suddenly likely to be a lot of use in the final battle. In fact, she might be more useful as a criminal leader.

Excuse me but, someone who does what they believe is "the right thing" blindly is not a hero. The case of Saren is actually the case of the "fallen" hero, although his background with Anderson kind of kills it. He was looking only for survival, instead of the interest of the many. He looked for his only interest, a hero, or a paragon in my games, is someone who listens, who tries always to reach the best solution for each problem, the less conflictive solution, even if its a hard one, like letting live someone you know has done wrongs.
A famous case is Elnora, I've played that game many times now, and I have only killed her on my renegades playthroughs, but I always tend to keep her alive, because Shepard did not know the information he discovers lately, and even if he did, he wouldn't have killed her either, but bring her into justice.

But the Rachni case and the Feros case aren't so different, only one may be more useful than the other.
You spared the life of all the colonists afterall, you did the imposible to help them. They oughta be grateful.

Someone who treats people like that, is probably going to gain the hearts of the many, it may not be useful in a war, but quoting Shepard himself: No matter how strong you are, allies will ALWAYS make you stronger.

Modifié par alx119, 25 mai 2011 - 03:57 .

[DPSSOC]

crimzontearz wrote...
with that in mind you HAVE to admitt some of the renegade choices are so ridiculous they do warrant some sort of backlash.

I have to do no such thing good sir/madame. 

crimzontearz wrote...
Look at Feros, no seriously...scientists tell you "the colonists are OK they can be saved and cured just knock em out". The renegade choice? "yeah, we are gonna kill them all just to be safe"

That's one way to look at it.  If I might offer another:

Paragon - Prioritizes well being of the colonists
Renegade - Prioritizes well being of the squad/mission

If you pull punches in a firefight, or any fight really, you increase the chance of being grievously hurt.  If Shepard and co are seriously hurt or killed trying to save the colonists the mission fails, Saren wins.  That's what the decision is, are you willing to accept a greater chance of failing your mission (catching Saren) in order to save these people?  If you answer yes congradulations you're a fine person, but answering no certainly doesn't make you a monster given the stakes (galactic extinction after Virmire, losing entire colonies to Saren's Geth before).

crimzontearz wrote...
The 2 missiles mission in ME2? Choice, save hundreds of people OR save a spaceport.......is that really a choice? would anyone but a sociopath consciously choose to kill the freaking civilians to save an infrastructure?

Again that's one way to look at it (save people vs save stuff), but again if I might offer another.  If you save those hundreds of people the colony dies; support is cut and those survivors are now effectively destitute.  If you save the infrastructure some of the colonists die but the colony lives, and survivors have an actual future.

[Ultai]

Saphra Deden wrote...

There is no dilemma! There can be a bad consequence for SHEPARD that still provides additional content for the PLAYER!

The problem with Renegade choices is that when you import them you often wind up with nothing. It isn't a disaster, it isn't a success. Just nothing happens. This spoils the point of importing in the first place. Like I just said.

Now for story reasons Paragon decisions always having positive effects for Shepard is annoying, yeah, but it is much less of an issue than the LACK OF CONTENT.

If, say, freeing the rachni queen had caused them to attack in ME2, forcing you to do a mission where you fight rachni, that would be a bad thing for Shepard, the character. However the player would benefit with an additional mission to play, meaning more experience points and maybe an additional upgrade. You can reward the player no matter how their decision affects the game world.

This.  I could go for a re-evaluation of the para/rene system.  Honestly I prefer decisions without color coded text that just screams pick me pick me get out of jail free card.  Probably why I'm enjoying Witcher 2 so much right now.  Think about each decision, no auto blue my way to victory.

[Seboist]

I don't see much of a point for the Renegade path in Feros from a meta perspective. The gas grenades not only neutralize the colonists but insta-kill the Creepers too.