904 réponses à ce sujet

[Senior Cinco]

Moiaussi wrote...

Senior Cinco wrote...

No...He wasn't...personally. But HE was under the comand of the psyco Blue Sun Chick that was. For Rana to even be there should be a red flag.

Correction, Okeer was playing lip service to the Blue Suns. They weren't getting any army they could handle, and they were only getting his rejects. When Shepard arrived, it was pretty clear that the Blue Suns weren't getting any such thing. Moreover, Shepard condemned her actions before even talking to Okeer.

For the love of pete..Your reading to much into this and not far enough in the thread...
Your right he did that before talking to Okeer. Because she is a little to slick with the smoothtalk. I'm telling you I don't think she can be trusted to go a straight and narrow. i don't care how much you defend her.

PS; please understand I am not trying to offend, just giving my op

EDIT:

Ok..this sparked my intrest enough to check my save files. Everything is from her point of view in an attempt to wiggle out of it again. It is not clear who she exactly works for. She says she is not there to help the mercs. (yea right) How do we know that for sure. How do we know Jedore didn't place her there to assist Okeer. Rana says she just works on some education brain program for his tankers,but it's not clear if that is before or after Okeer dumps them. Okeer doesn't mention her involvement in any detail, only that Rana reminded Shep about the actions on Virmire. Okeer talks about providing Jedore with a few thousand Krogan, (sounds like an army to me) what ever his main and personal goals may be. 

Not sure what you ment about lip service, He seems more like a contractor to me. The Krogan he supplies her with are not rejects like you make them out to be. They just don't meet his optimum standards for Mr. Perfect, but are far better warriors than any of the natural Krogan. Okeer makes that very clear. Rana's involvement is too shady to swallow. My current FemShep will take her out this time around on Vermire. BAM!!

Modifié par Senior Cinco, 29 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[tjzsf]

Paragons need more negative consequences for being a trusting idealist.
On a side note, it bugs me that of the standard responses (non-charm/intimidate), the paragon choice that lets you keep Tali's loyalty is to commit perjury, while the renegade one is to tell the truth about her father. It really ought to be the other way around.

[Moiaussi]

Senior Cinco wrote...

For the love of pete..Your reading to much into this and not far enough in the thread...
Your right he did that before talking to Okeer. Because she is a little to slick with the smoothtalk. I'm telling you I don't think she can be trusted to go a straight and narrow. i don't care how much you defend her.

PS; please understand I am not trying to offend, just giving my op

EDIT:

Ok..this sparked my intrest enough to check my save files. Everything is from her point of view in an attempt to wiggle out of it again. It is not clear who she exactly works for. She says she is not there to help the mercs. (yea right) How do we know that for sure. How do we know Jedore didn't place her there to assist Okeer. Rana says she just works on some education brain program for his tankers,but it's not clear if that is before or after Okeer dumps them. Okeer doesn't mention her involvement in any detail, only that Rana reminded Shep about the actions on Virmire. Okeer talks about providing Jedore with a few thousand Krogan, (sounds like an army to me) what ever his main and personal goals may be. 

Not sure what you ment about lip service, He seems more like a contractor to me. The Krogan he supplies her with are not rejects like you make them out to be. They just don't meet his optimum standards for Mr. Perfect, but are far better warriors than any of the natural Krogan. Okeer makes that very clear. Rana's involvement is too shady to swallow. My current FemShep will take her out this time around on Vermire. BAM!!

Okeer is using the mercs for his own ends. He is a contractor, but only to the extent he needed funding and facilities. He is definately not simply cooperating with them or he would be training the rejects differently. An army of his rejects would be against his purposes, since it would be just using  the reproductive rate again (this time using cloning to get around the genophage). He claims he is just looking for one 'superior' Krogan to provide an example of what his people can be. I am not sure what his exit stategy is, or if he thought it through that far (my guess would be for he, Grunt, and Rana to shoot their way out, proving Grunt's capabilities).

Since he cooperates fully and is willing to lay down his own life to protect his creation, he has a fair bit of credibility.

As for Rana, I can understand the arguement for not trusting her. I just think that Shepard pre-judged her and get annoyed that there is no option to give her the benefit of the doubt. If there is anything hinky about her it is more likely that she is at least partially indoctrinated, in which case Shepard telling her to be a good girl isn't going to do much. The indoctrination will trick her into being otherwise. If that is the case, through, Grunt could be a problem when the Reapers arrive, since she had a hand in his training and could have tainted it. If you don't trust Rana, you should likely not trust Grunt either.

[DPSSOC]

tjzsf wrote...

Paragons need more negative consequences for being a trusting idealist.
On a side note, it bugs me that of the standard responses (non-charm/intimidate), the paragon choice that lets you keep Tali's loyalty is to commit perjury, while the renegade one is to tell the truth about her father. It really ought to be the other way around.

Yeah this is one of the decisions (I can think of 2) that give me the impression that Bioware, whatever goal they started out with, have flipped Paragon and Renegade to mean ideal vs less ideal outcome (I won't say bad I don't think it's gone that far).  A Paragon (to my mind) should hand over the evidence because it is the right thing to do, while committing perjury is definitely not.

The other choice is Legion's LM.  The Paragon option is to brainwash the Geth despite all Paragon dialogue up to that point condemning the idea of re-writing them.  Of course it could just be the result of trying to force all decisions into the Paragon/Renegade dichotomy when they don't really fit.

In Legion's mission there is no Paragon choice, you either brain-wash them or destroy them outright there is no good option here.  Similarly in Tali's it could be said  there is no Renegade choice.  You either respect the Quarian legal system and the fact that the people who died on that ship deserve justice so you submit the evidence, or you respect Tali's request not to tarnish her father's reputation.  Putting your friends feelings ahead of the mission or enforcing law and justice are both Paragon concerns.  I would have loved if both non-charm options gave Paragon points in Tali's loyalty mission because both options focus on doing the right thing it's just a matter of by who.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Paragons need more negative consequences for being a trusting idealist.
On a side note, it bugs me that of the standard responses (non-charm/intimidate), the paragon choice that lets you keep Tali's loyalty is to commit perjury, while the renegade one is to tell the truth about her father. It really ought to be the other way around.

Yeah this is one of the decisions (I can think of 2) that give me the impression that Bioware, whatever goal they started out with, have flipped Paragon and Renegade to mean ideal vs less ideal outcome (I won't say bad I don't think it's gone that far).  A Paragon (to my mind) should hand over the evidence because it is the right thing to do, while committing perjury is definitely not.

The other choice is Legion's LM.  The Paragon option is to brainwash the Geth despite all Paragon dialogue up to that point condemning the idea of re-writing them.  Of course it could just be the result of trying to force all decisions into the Paragon/Renegade dichotomy when they don't really fit.

In Legion's mission there is no Paragon choice, you either brain-wash them or destroy them outright there is no good option here.  Similarly in Tali's it could be said  there is no Renegade choice.  You either respect the Quarian legal system and the fact that the people who died on that ship deserve justice so you submit the evidence, or you respect Tali's request not to tarnish her father's reputation.  Putting your friends feelings ahead of the mission or enforcing law and justice are both Paragon concerns.  I would have loved if both non-charm options gave Paragon points in Tali's loyalty mission because both options focus on doing the right thing it's just a matter of by who.

Both of those bothered me for exactly the same reasons. Personally I wasn't keen on Legion's loyalty mission at all as a paragon. I would have liked to be able to investigate more before taking such drasitc action, get a better sense of what really happened to the Heretics rather than just take Legion's word for it. There is no option to have Tali check the calculations, or to even look at them yourself if you are an engineer, and no third party information regarding the heretics.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I felt both these areas too where off. With Legions mission how the hell am I qualified to make that choice w/o council form both the geth and at least Tali? I mean her people have to life with whatever I do. Destroying them is great for her but bad for the war letting them live maybe bad form them and bad for the geth at the same time! I wanted I'm going to defer or I'm going to sit on this one a bit option so I could talk to the two effected parties! The same feeling I had with the Queen I wasn't even born when this occurred so shep should've been able to at least seek council with Wrex and Liara if not outright as the council and weigh the pros and cons to each side of the issue. It's like being jury on a trial that only has half the facts!

I also agree with the take that both give the evidence over and hide it do right by each party. Tali benefits socially from the cover up but the relationship with the fleet and shep has suffered per Xens letter she wrote saying if shep had only given up the data the Quarians would've allowed humanity to reap the benefits but sense he didn't they won't. Then of course given the data over does right with the legal system they kick him off and everybody knows what happened but it risks dooming the fleet. I would've liked to talk to Tali privately before deciding how this was going to play out just a minute or two would've been enough to have her take on the broader implications of what we were about to do.

I'm not saying every major move has to have shep seeking council but there are just somethings that shep isn't qualified to do a judgment he just isn't qualified to command. For instance the Virmire choice no council was needed there it was effecting the 3 people involved if you kill Ash, Kaiden and shep feel guilt. The two choices above risk igniting war or destroying civilizations from the inside out alittle time out for those types of things when you have crewmen who are directly tied to the outcome would be great even if you have to call them on the ship and say hey let me get your take on this one.

[Someone With Mass]

DPSSOC wrote...
Putting your friends feelings ahead of the mission or enforcing law and justice are both Paragon concerns.  I would have loved if both non-charm options gave Paragon points in Tali's loyalty mission because both options focus on doing the right thing it's just a matter of by who.

I have to disagree with that one. A Renegade can do whatever it takes to make the squad focus on the mission, and that can sometimes mean disobeying the law. For example, Garrus' loyalty mission, where the Renegade option is to let Garrus shoot Sidonis in the back of the head. That's murder, no matter how you twist it.

And Renegade Shepard can see the trial as a waste of time, and isn't afraid to flat out call it a big sham. That said, not all choices regarding a character's personal feelings are necessarily Paragon. It's mostly a matter of perspective.

[lovgreno]

Perhaps we are overanalysing this a bit. Paragon or renegade doesn't realy mean that much at all. It would probably just be better to choose what option you think this Shepard you are playing at the moment would choose and don't care about blue and red. As for the consequences Shepard are making a gamble hoping it will do more good than bad despite what color the options are texted in, much like us in real life. Therefore I doubt that Shepard will whine about bad consequences or unfairness.

[Seboist]

DPSSOC wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Paragons need more negative consequences for being a trusting idealist.
On a side note, it bugs me that of the standard responses (non-charm/intimidate), the paragon choice that lets you keep Tali's loyalty is to commit perjury, while the renegade one is to tell the truth about her father. It really ought to be the other way around.

Yeah this is one of the decisions (I can think of 2) that give me the impression that Bioware, whatever goal they started out with, have flipped Paragon and Renegade to mean ideal vs less ideal outcome (I won't say bad I don't think it's gone that far).  A Paragon (to my mind) should hand over the evidence because it is the right thing to do, while committing perjury is definitely not.

The other choice is Legion's LM.  The Paragon option is to brainwash the Geth despite all Paragon dialogue up to that point condemning the idea of re-writing them.  Of course it could just be the result of trying to force all decisions into the Paragon/Renegade dichotomy when they don't really fit.

In Legion's mission there is no Paragon choice, you either brain-wash them or destroy them outright there is no good option here.  Similarly in Tali's it could be said  there is no Renegade choice.  You either respect the Quarian legal system and the fact that the people who died on that ship deserve justice so you submit the evidence, or you respect Tali's request not to tarnish her father's reputation.  Putting your friends feelings ahead of the mission or enforcing law and justice are both Paragon concerns.  I would have loved if both non-charm options gave Paragon points in Tali's loyalty mission because both options focus on doing the right thing it's just a matter of by who.

Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

[DPSSOC]

Seboist wrote...
Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

Good point.  You notice that only works one way though, and only with Quarians?

New request for ME3: Consistency of morality.  If being a bit of a brute is Renegade keep it Renegade don't give people Paragon points for it just because they're helping a Quarian./joke

[Seboist]

DPSSOC wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

Good point.  You notice that only works one way though, and only with Quarians?

New request for ME3: Consistency of morality.  If being a bit of a brute is Renegade keep it Renegade don't give people Paragon points for it just because they're helping a Quarian./joke

Paragon Shepard really loses his temper when it comes to people mistreating Quarians apparently. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him if he sees anybody killing Quarians, he might end up blowing up a whole city block or something.

[Seboist]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

Good point.  You notice that only works one way though, and only with Quarians?

New request for ME3: Consistency of morality.  If being a bit of a brute is Renegade keep it Renegade don't give people Paragon points for it just because they're helping a Quarian./joke

Paragon Shepard really loses his temper when it comes to people mistreating Quarians apparently. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him if he sees anybody killing Quarians, he might end up blowing up a whole city block or something.

Or, ya know, blow up a Ymir mech that he had to anyways

That he shoots off the head of so it can destroy the town in a nuclear explosion!

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Paragons need more negative consequences for being a trusting idealist.
On a side note, it bugs me that of the standard responses (non-charm/intimidate), the paragon choice that lets you keep Tali's loyalty is to commit perjury, while the renegade one is to tell the truth about her father. It really ought to be the other way around.

Yeah this is one of the decisions (I can think of 2) that give me the impression that Bioware, whatever goal they started out with, have flipped Paragon and Renegade to mean ideal vs less ideal outcome (I won't say bad I don't think it's gone that far).  A Paragon (to my mind) should hand over the evidence because it is the right thing to do, while committing perjury is definitely not.

The other choice is Legion's LM.  The Paragon option is to brainwash the Geth despite all Paragon dialogue up to that point condemning the idea of re-writing them.  Of course it could just be the result of trying to force all decisions into the Paragon/Renegade dichotomy when they don't really fit.

In Legion's mission there is no Paragon choice, you either brain-wash them or destroy them outright there is no good option here.  Similarly in Tali's it could be said  there is no Renegade choice.  You either respect the Quarian legal system and the fact that the people who died on that ship deserve justice so you submit the evidence, or you respect Tali's request not to tarnish her father's reputation.  Putting your friends feelings ahead of the mission or enforcing law and justice are both Paragon concerns.  I would have loved if both non-charm options gave Paragon points in Tali's loyalty mission because both options focus on doing the right thing it's just a matter of by who.

Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

I liked the fact that the paragon isn't a saint and is falliable...he can't be an effective Marine or Spectre if he is going to be constantly concerned with protocol and being polite, he is arrogent and not perfect, plus it rocks his paragon throne a little,that is what I love about Arrival too, it more than rocks his throne....I play a pure paragon, I want him to be good, I don't want him to be a saint though, I like the questionable edges.

[tjzsf]

Golden Owl wrote...

I liked the fact that the paragon isn't a saint and is falliable...he can't be an effective Marine or Spectre if he is going to be constantly concerned with protocol and being polite, he is arrogent and not perfect, plus it rocks his paragon throne a little,that is what I love about Arrival too, it more than rocks his throne....I play a pure paragon, I want him to be good, I don't want him to be a saint though, I like the questionable edges.

Of course. Which brings us back full-circle to the problem, that is that picking the charm/paragon (using this to mean upper right choice) always gets you good results, but intimidate/renegade (lower right) almost never, even though they're supposedly not supposed to be pure good or bad. It's nice that ME2 added a bit of a badass edge to being Paragon (was pleasantly surprised when "charm" on elcor merchant on Omega was "gimme a discount and stop bugging that quarian, or i'll break your legs"), but there wasn't an equivalent for being a renegade who isn't a jerkass to everyone he meets. And no one said being a Paragon meant being constantly concerned with every rule or protocol or being nice to everyone - but if it's a reasonable rule (like, say, not committing perjury), then it should be far more Paragon to follow it than it is to break it. Within the context of Tali's trial, giving the evidence - respecting the not unreasonable laws of a foreign culture even if you personally don't like the result - is far more Paragon than Renegade.

I think ideally, playing a pure paragon or renegade should result in a more bland character, because barring certain aberrations, who in real life is a perfectly uncorruptable saint or a xenophobic bloodthirsty jackass? Playing a realistic deep character with their own worldviews and beliefs necessarily results in paragons with a dash of renegade or renegades with a streak of paragon. Example: my wuxia paragon shepard still shot the exogeni rep and Helena Blake, because he's tough on crime. My mission-focused renegade shep, on the other hand, racked up 80% of paragon poitns in 1 and 60 in 2 because while she's terrible to enemies, she's nice to her crew. That, to me, makes them far more interesting than they would be if they were pure to their alignments.

[crimzontearz]

I am not getting this

why does paragon have to equal "non violent"?

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Both Paragon and Renegade aren't consistant to say the least. The Paragon charm option for that Elcor merchant on Omega is to threaten to break his legs and the Paragon interrupt for the Quarian on the citadel involves pushing a Volus and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. LOL

I never talked to the elcor merchant - I always buy the quarian a ticket. But as for c-sec and the volus..its because they're racists..sooo yeah...paragon indeed. Does anyone else dislike/distrust the volus? Almost all the volus I've met in game are hella shady..

Bah some of them are just misunderstood.
Niftu Cal isn't shady... he is the biotic god
Jahleed is just paranoid that Chorban wanted him dead.
Also Expat the vendor isn't shady at all

[Seboist]

Volus characters are either semi-joke or complete joke characters. The only one I can remember that was portrayed as completely serious was Barla Von.

[Aimi]

...well, and Expat. And there wasn't much funny about Han Olar. He just kinda got screwed.

[DPSSOC]

crimzontearz wrote...

I am not getting this

why does paragon have to equal "non violent"?

It doesn't, but it generally doesn't equal "unprevoked assault against the unarmed" either.

[Mecha Tengu]

Mesina2 wrote...

I'll go off-topic here.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

squee913 wrote...

First of all, Kudos on the excellent choice in majors. A person after my own heart. (though I admit, my grad work is in the crusades, not WWII naval warfare)

Since this is going into the theoretical, let dial it back down a bit. I never said Japan had a good chance of winning, only that they were a viable threat.  If they had won at Midway, they potentially could have invaded Alaska. In fact, this is what the US brass originally thought Japan was planning to do instead of midway. If they had sunk the big E at Soloman Islands, they almost certainly would have taken Guadal canal and used it as a staging ground to take Australia. If these had happened, than there is no way to tell how the war would have changed. They were a treat. Just because they lost, does not change that.

Japan never had the ability to take Australia for the same reasons it could never take Hawaii: never enough men, never enough ships, and never enough oil to sustain combat operations at such ranges.

This is increasingly off topic, and irrelevant to the rest of the discussion at hand. If you'd like to take this to PM, I'll gladly oblige you there.

They taken over China. CHINA!

What makes you think they couldn't do same thing with Australia and US West Coast?
Oil? They were still doing war until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could have conquer all of that if they were more lucky on Pearl Harbor( for that carrier) and Midway.

yay ww2 debates, (inb4 godwin)

They took over eastern coastal china and manchuria. Alot of the IJA were also fighting in southeast Asia against the british from india. Even if the CPC and Nationalists were at each other, effectively tying up the chinese, the Japanese army was spread out and overstretched 

Japan had no means to invade the U.S west Coast, but probably would have conducted a naval invasion of Australia if the attack at pearl harbour had been sucessful in destroying the carriers. With that task done, securing the oil from the dutch east indies would have been easy

[Dean_the_Young]

If you ignore US submarines, at least.