904 réponses à ce sujet

[Golden Owl]

InvincibleHero wrote...


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.

So what your saying is it's now impossible for a ship to land there without a space port...If thats the case how was the space port built to begin with...as I am assuming ships full of materials and labourers need to land in the first place to build the space port...and how would said pirates or slavers land if you cannot land without a space port....your arguement looks like swiss cheese.

Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that now the commerce is defunct, the colonists leave...with their lives.....yes, is stated Shep saves most of the colonists lives in his journal....And yes the colonists would be evacuated.

[woods26]

What it comes down to is that choices barely have any kind of consequences regardless of if you're a paragon or renegade. I doubt it will be any different for ME3.

[Aedan_Cousland]

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

That last bit is hilarious, considering......


SPOILERS AHEAD










...that in ME3 Cerberus is working with the Reapers, and handing the Collector Base to TIM turns out to be a colossal mistake. In ME3 it sounds as if both Paragons & Renegades get punished for some of their decisions, and the Collector Base decision is one that was mentioned as backfiring on Renegades.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 27 mai 2011 - 01:51 .

[Moiaussi]

Note that 'colossal' likely has to be taken with a 'colossal' grain of salt....

[Mr. Gogeta34]

" not punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just means some end-scenarios may be different or harder to get."
 
-Casey Hudson on punishing renegades for the collector base choice

I wonder how Casey defines "punishing," lol.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 mai 2011 - 05:47 .

[Seboist]

We're already being punished with a lack of "I support you TIM, lead the way" option in ME2 and fighting Cerberus no matter what in ME3.

I also expect the kill the Queen decision to be made a mockery of by fighting Rachni Husks no matter what as well.

[khordlambert]

Seboist wrote...

We're already being punished with a lack of "I support you TIM, lead the way" option in ME2 and fighting Cerberus no matter what in ME3.

.

You say that as if he wasn't already going to do that to begin with. TIM is a manipulative borderline sociopath who only seems to want humanty in charge so he can rule it all. Even if you COULD act on your "passion" for him he would just use you until he no longer had any need of you. Like he most likely is doing now even if you gave him the base. I mean, what on Earth could your Shepard offer him that he can't get elsewhere?

Loyalty to the cause? Miranda has that covered. She only betrays Timmy after continued contact with Shepard.

Competant agent? Again, Miranda. You can also add Jacob to this particular list and Kai Leng as well.

"Company"? Just look at the Shadow Broker's notes. He ain't hurting for companionship. (Not to mention that the only lady he's hooked up with more than once was an Asari Matriarch so it's unlikely you'd really fit his type anyway.)

That just leaves you as the person most likely to make it through to the Collectors and clear them out so he can get the toys on board and make super soldiers. Like he is probably doing now if the new Cerberus grunts are any indicator. After that, you are just a potential loose end that runs the risk of being captured and giving away important information. With all that tech, why would you even be NEEDED to stop the reapers?

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...

We're already being punished with a lack of "I support you TIM, lead the way" option in ME2 and fighting Cerberus no matter what in ME3.....

But then there are those of us who REALLY did not want to work with Cerberus in ME2...I know I was horrified at the discovery and spent the whole first game looking and hoping for ways to get away from Cerberus and destroy TIM....Were Paragons being punished in being FORCED to work with Cerberus in ME2 or not play the game, since they were the only two options? I didn't like it, but didn't see it as punishment, just story arc.... never liked the working for Cerberus story arc....but the rest of the game is very good and am looking forward to taking down Cerberus in ME3

[InvincibleHero]

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...


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.

So what your saying is it's now impossible for a ship to land there without a space port...If thats the case how was the space port built to begin with...as I am assuming ships full of materials and labourers need to land in the first place to build the space port...and how would said pirates or slavers land if you cannot land without a space port....your arguement looks like swiss cheese.

Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that now the commerce is defunct, the colonists leave...with their lives.....yes, is stated Shep saves most of the colonists lives in his journal....And yes the colonists would be evacuated.

No support structure means no warehouses, forklifts and heavy equipment as well as casualties of the workers at spaceport. They probably lost their extranet connection and cannot even contact anyone. Also sponsoring corporation which could be Cerberus will write it off. This is obvious from the end mission screens in the game. Did you try the other option or always saved the colonists? Do it next time if so.

Who will resupply the colonists? There is no galactic Red Cross disaster relief that we have been made aware of. Anyway the slavers will do something first and abduct free slave labor for profit. Is Shepard using the Normandy to resupply? Not that I am aware? Did you get to notify someone of the tragedy other than Illusive Man? Nope.

Never said no ships as obviously the slavers would have to be able to round them up(boy way to mischaracterize ), but certainly only smaller ships. Even the Normandy I needed docking and it was only a frigate. Also no refueling no restaurants/food for ships docking to take on supplies. No way without a spaceport will anyone land. Not small traders and not big ones either.

Who will evac the colonists? There is no money to be made in doing so. Who will pay for it? Who even knows about it? Shep and Illusive Man.

[Aimi]

Seboist wrote...

We're already being punished with a lack of "I support you TIM, lead the way" option in ME2 and fighting Cerberus no matter what in ME3.

You're also being punished with a lack of "I support you, Harbinger, lead the way" option, as well as the lack of an option to just screw off to Illium for some earthly delights while completely ignoring the Reapers until they fly in and reap.  And the lack of an option to take over the decapitated Blue Suns organization and form yourself a little warlord state out in the Terminus.  And don't forget the lack of an option to kill Udina in both of the first two games, because he's an annoying dick.

CHOICE IS TYRANNY
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Modifié par daqs, 27 mai 2011 - 12:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...


...that in ME3 Cerberus is working with the Reapers, and handing the Collector Base to TIM turns out to be a colossal mistake. In ME3 it sounds as if both Paragons & Renegades get punished for some of their decisions, and the Collector Base decision is one that was mentioned as backfiring on Renegades.

Cerberus being against Shepard doesn't mean they are for the Reapers, any more than any of the other people who were fighting Shepard at any point were for the Reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

" not punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just means some end-scenarios may be different or harder to get."
 
-Casey Hudson on punishing renegades for the collector base choice

I wonder how Casey defines "punishing," lol.

Probably not the same way you do, if you consider what he said one. It works both ways: you can't get some endings with the Base... but you also can't get some endings without the base. For the same reason that Renegades can't get something dependent on the Paragon Council decision, the Paragons can't expect to get anything dependant on the Renegade Council.

[Aimi]

laecraft wrote...

daqs wrote...

Seboist wrote...

We're already being punished with a lack of "I support you TIM, lead the way" option in ME2 and fighting Cerberus no matter what in ME3.

You're also being punished with a lack of "I support you, Harbinger, lead the way" option, as well as the lack of an option to just screw off to Illium for some earthly delights while completely ignoring the Reapers until they fly in and reap.  And the lack of an option to take over the decapitated Blue Suns organization and form yourself a little warlord state out in the Terminus.  And don't forget the lack of an option to kill Udina in both of the first two games, because he's an annoying dick.

CHOICE IS TYRANNY
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The very same could be said to Paragons who detest that they can't be more reluctant about working with Cerberus. "But you also can't be more reluctant about protecting the humanity and saving the galaxy!" Freedom is a cage, infinite choice leads to infinite lack of substance, roleplaying is evil, and being blindly railroaded kicking and screaming to the designated point is the one true way.

I get it, really. We're here to save the galaxy. How about letting us have a little fun along the way?

There is a world of difference between "having a little fun along the way", which makes a game better, and being forced to create what amounts to a partially new game, which usually makes the whole thing less polished and worse.

Of course, the specific complaints - that Paragons can't complain about working with Cerberus and that people who like Cerberus can't ally with TIM - aren't really valid.  The first one is flat-out wrong, because it's been confirmed that players will have the ability in ME3 to roleplay whether they liked or disliked working with Cerberus.  The second one is basically just speculation: we don't know why Cerberus - not necessarily TIM specifically, just Cerberus - is an enemy, and what players' potential attempts to respond to all that will be.  I mean, it could be something like the whole Legion thing with ME2, where pre-release stuff hyped up their stalker-ish role when in fact that was confined to a very brief and chance encounter and they ended up joining the team for the remainder of the game.

Modifié par daqs, 27 mai 2011 - 02:53 .

[Golden Owl]

InvincibleHero wrote...




....Never said no ships as obviously the slavers would have to be able to round them up(boy way to mischaracterize ), but certainly only smaller ships. Even the Normandy I needed docking and it was only a frigate. Also no refueling no restaurants/food for ships docking to take on supplies. No way without a spaceport will anyone land. Not small traders and not big ones either.....

My sincere apologies InvincibleHero....I did misread your post....sorry....

Is late here, will respond to your post tomorrow...I want to go into my games and recheck my info first...I do have one game in which I accidently missiled the colony and didn't reload...so will check the info on both out.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

" not punishing but you will see different results of that, as TIM obviously benefits from that resource, but it doesn't punish renegades, it just means some end-scenarios may be different or harder to get."
 
-Casey Hudson on punishing renegades for the collector base choice

I wonder how Casey defines "punishing," lol.

Considering at least one renegade camp equates 'punishing' with 'reduced content and/or an easier game since you eliminated threats or encounters previously' that response is argubly rewarding renegades.

If you choose all the renegade paths, a 'sunshine and lolipops' ending being harder to achieve would likewise likely be considered a reward to many renegades since they consider such endings sappy and/or unrealistic.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...


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.

So what your saying is it's now impossible for a ship to land there without a space port...If thats the case how was the space port built to begin with...as I am assuming ships full of materials and labourers need to land in the first place to build the space port...and how would said pirates or slavers land if you cannot land without a space port....your arguement looks like swiss cheese.

Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that now the commerce is defunct, the colonists leave...with their lives.....yes, is stated Shep saves most of the colonists lives in his journal....And yes the colonists would be evacuated.

When you make the choice to nuke the port side of the colony but spare the city it says those in the city will be evacuated and the colony will have to be abandoned vs you send the nukes to the city and spare the port the port will be used for Alliance supply storage but no colony will be built again.

[Golden Owl]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...


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.

So what your saying is it's now impossible for a ship to land there without a space port...If thats the case how was the space port built to begin with...as I am assuming ships full of materials and labourers need to land in the first place to build the space port...and how would said pirates or slavers land if you cannot land without a space port....your arguement looks like swiss cheese.

Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that now the commerce is defunct, the colonists leave...with their lives.....yes, is stated Shep saves most of the colonists lives in his journal....And yes the colonists would be evacuated.

When you make the choice to nuke the port side of the colony but spare the city it says those in the city will be evacuated and the colony will have to be abandoned vs you send the nukes to the city and spare the port the port will be used for Alliance supply storage but no colony will be built again.

Thank you Destroy Raiden...you have saved me a long search...appreciated...

[Aedan_Cousland]

Moiaussi wrote...

Note that 'colossal' likely has to be taken with a 'colossal' grain of salt....

Sure. No decision made in previous games is going to be game breaking. But keeping the Collector Base is a renegade decision that backfires to a certain extent.

I actually laughed out loud when reading the article where that decision was mentioned as one that works against renegades, since some of the renegade players were so obnoxious on the forums about it being the 'right' decision at the end of Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 27 mai 2011 - 05:27 .

[Aedan_Cousland]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

I actually laughed out loud when reading the article where that decision was mentioned as one that works against renegades, since some of the renegade players were so obnoxious on the forums about it being the 'right' decision at the end of Mass Effect 2.

It is still the "right" decision in the sense that it is the most informed decision you can make at the time.

Even when I'm wrong I'm still right.

No it isn't.

And is a bad decision for the very simple reason that even if Cerberus could be trusted with the tech (it can't), there is no way you can ever hope to hold the base against the Reapers. They could easily retake it and put it back to it's original function, which sort of makes the whole suicide mission completely pointless.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 27 mai 2011 - 07:12 .

[Aimi]

The fact that people are still arguing about what the right choice was means that the good people at BioWare did something very, very right.

[Dean_the_Young]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...


And is a bad decision for the very simple reason that even if Cerberus could be trusted with the tech (it can't), there is no way you can ever hope to hold the base against the Reapers. They could easily retake it and put it back to it's original function, which sort of makes the whole suicide mission completely pointless.

Even ignoring how easy it would be to destroy the Collector Base before a recapture could occur, in order to use the base for its original function, they would also need to (a) capture and hold the vast majority of the Human population, and ( have clear, controlled space lanes to carry the humans to the base. All of which would be for the value of 1 additional Reaper to the host of Reapers already attacking.

At that point, they've already won the war. One Reaper, after those difficulties, would not change the war, or even necessarily overcome benefits from the base. Once the Reapers have already won the war, they can simply build a new Collector Base to do the exact same thing.


You deny them nothing that can't simply remake.

[Dave of Canada]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Cerberus being against Shepard doesn't mean they are for the Reapers, any more than any of the other people who were fighting Shepard at any point were for the Reapers.

Doesn't one of the magazine scans go "Cerberus is working for the Reapers" and then explains it'll make Renegades feel like idiots for trusting them? I seem to recall reading it and being furious.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[Siegdrifa]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

I actually laughed out loud when reading the article where that decision was mentioned as one that works against renegades, since some of the renegade players were so obnoxious on the forums about it being the 'right' decision at the end of Mass Effect 2.

It is still the "right" decision in the sense that it is the most informed decision you can make at the time.

Even when I'm wrong I'm still right.

No it isn't.

And is a bad decision for the very simple reason that even if Cerberus could be trusted with the tech (it can't), there is no way you can ever hope to hold the base against the Reapers. They could easily retake it and put it back to it's original function, which sort of makes the whole suicide mission completely pointless.

What's the points, at the end of ME3, you should get the same result. Because you kept the base won't make half bad end if you play right.

And no i'm not a pro base keeper, i always destroy the base even with my paragade playthrouhg and i had a hard time making understand that destroying it was a legit choice for me from all the intel i got while playing the game.

That Bioware make it a lil punishing is not a concerne to me since it was impossible de predic how it will turn out, Bioware could have made it good / bad for paragon / renegade.

Arguing "nananere ! i was right" (i don't give a damn about who is right) it's childish, grow up people, what is important is that you agree with the choice you made, without desrespect for people who made the other choice.

If your purpose is to predict only the best outcome, then forget RPG gender play pocker instead.

Edit: hum, i'll keep the last sentence as a new citation.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 27 mai 2011 - 07:32 .