904 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

For the major decisions, paragon choices are all about the short-term moral "right." Those species could die? Lets save them. Those people need help, lets help them. All other factors are irrelevant... no matter how large in scale those factors are.

Renegade choices are all about your long-term strategic "right." I want to save them but this threat will destroy everything including who I want to save... I've got to stop this monstrosity first. I want to do this but I can't risk destruction on a larger scale than what I can currently prevent. Outside factors are vital to this decision... especially if they're large in scale.

And yet both kill the Thorian, and both fight the Geth, and if there had been a Rachni war, the Paragons wouldn't have simply stopped fighting the Rachni if the Rachni showed no indications of standing down.

You have it backwards.

The reason that Paragons are willing to give others more of a chance is actually long term. The benefits to sparing the Rachni or any other given race or person are hardly immediate. If you spare the Rachni, how is anyone immediately better off (other than the Rachni)? On the other hand, sparing them means they are there later and are thus a potiential future resource.

Renegades tend to concentrate on future threats, whereas Paragons focus on future potentials. Renegades eliminate immediate risks at the cost of losing any long term benefits. Paragons accept more risk in exchange for potential long term gains.

It is impossible to say with certainty which approach is best for any given situation without being omniscient.

To say that the renegade approach is always the best is to say that every perceived threat is real and always outweighs any related benefits. That simply isn't reality.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And yet both kill the Thorian, and both fight the Geth, and if there had been a Rachni war, the Paragons wouldn't have simply stopped fighting the Rachni if the Rachni showed no indications of standing down.

They had no choice, there was no decision to make.  So it is not backwards.  I'm talking about Paragon and Renegade "decisions."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 02 juin 2011 - 09:24 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

They had no choice, there was no decision to make.  So it is not backwards.  I'm talking about Paragon and Renegade "decisions."

Just because we didn't have decisions to make doesn't mean that Shepard didn't, and you obviously didn't read any of the rest of what I said. How does Shepard benefit in the short term from freeing the Rachni Queen?

[Rip504]

First off Thank you Moiaussi.

DPSSOC wrote...

First off The Rachni War isn't a myth it's a documented historical event. As for the babies what evidence do you have that they were crazed? You have the Queen's word and the testimony of one traumatized scientist. The Queen's word is worthless since she's under duress (She's imprisoned and you have the kill switch) so you really only have the testimony of one traumatized scientist that the Rachni might be crazy. Another possibility is that the Queen has been calling to her children to break her out and because of the torture these calls are so frantic and desperate that it's whipped her children into a frenzy.

"The records we have of the war may be 'documented' but key aspects are in her favor, particularly the facts that Council ships intruded in Rachni space and no communications seemed possible. That tends to change rules of engagement."


Documented History? Really? It's documented that the Rachni were indoctrinated by the Reapers? I doubt this because the rest of the Galaxy believe the Reapers to be a myth. So it's easy to assume not all of the facts are contained in this documented history from a 1,000 years ago. Yes the war happened. But we don't know what really happen,because no one knew the Rachni's side. Are you telling me I should take the word of a dead alien over my personal experience? Shepard may be one of the first beings to ever communicate with the Rachni,and the Asari on Illuim thinks I did the right thing. Also if the Rachni children were not crazed,why did the Queen ask Shepard to kill them?
"testimony of one traumatized scientist." Ever played ME1? That "traumatized dock worker" could of saved the galaxy alot of time,effort,and lives. So the Rachni children may be crazy for this reason or that reason,or they may not even be crazy.Cool.. My Shepard thought the Rachni children were crazy, based off of his experience .
I didn't claim everything I said was facts or right. Just seen from a different PoV.

4,973. I understand your reasoning but it assumes the Rachni possess the same concept of gratitude as us, and given how alien the Rachni prove to be that's a damn big assumption.

Yes I agree. I said it was my opinion. Doesn't mean that I am wrong though. The Rachni could easily turn around and help me because I saved their Queen and race. Based off of my experience, I found that saving sentient beings lives or life is usally rewarded with gratitude.

It was generations until the overrun the galaxy I believe which makes sense since the Rachni War lasted centuries..

Ok,but it has only been a little under 3 years. So again let me ask you or anyone how will the Rachni betray Shepard? Why would the Rachni betray Shepard? Other then Reaper indoctrination,as this could happen to any race. Maybe the Council should betray Shepard and the Galaxy because I saved their lives also. I can see the logic behind " O you saved the Rachni. That was dumb now they will betray you.!." Why and How? Because they are aggresive and like to fight? So is Grunt. And just like Grunt,I gave them an enemy to target. An enemy(Reapers)that has already fouled the Rachni once before. I personally don't expect anything from them. So If the Rachni do decide to help/betray me,it will be a pleasant surprise in my ME3 playthrough.

 

Modifié par Rip504, 02 juin 2011 - 11:34 .

[Moiaussi]

Rip, you should edit that to clean up your quotes... it is hard to see what your replies are and to whom.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...
You have the fact that they didn't seem to be trying to rescue the Queen and their efforts could easily have prompted her captors to simply hit the kill switch. Even if she lied about that though, how is that evidence against her? She was a prisoner and being tortured. How would any escape attempts on her part be arguements against her?

Sorry didn't mean to imply it as a point against her just that there is another explanation.  As for not trying to rescue her what would you call repeatedly assaulting Ventralis' position despite "even animals know not to stick their noses where it hurts."  Yes it could be they were just in crazy kill mode but it's also possible they were attempting to break Ventralis' line and get to the labs beyond where the Queen was.

Moiaussi wrote...
Just because the Queen is under duress doesn't mean she is lieing. There is a lot more that she says other than just 'spare me I am peaceful' that some of us consider evidence that she is likely telling the truth.

You're right it doesn't mean she is lieing but it gives her a good reason to.  I generally agree that she probably was telling the truth and when I do kill her it's because of the threat represented by a Rachni change of heart further down the line rather than initial mistrust.  Back to the point however in most courts proving a witness is testifying under duress makes their testimony inaddmissable.

Moiaussi wrote...
There is also the fact that she knows how the last war turned out and is rational enough to understand that.

I direct you to WW2 the war after the "War to end all wars."

Moiaussi wrote...
The records we have of the war may be 'documented' but key aspects are in her favor, particularly the facts that Council ships intruded in Rachni space and no communications seemed possible. That tends to change rules of engagement.

Certainly, just meant to point out this isn't the 12 labours of Hercules or the fall of Troy this is something we know happened and have the details recorded at the time.

Moiaussi wrote...
She seems completely rational and such 'concepts' are common sense among social species. By the way, exactly how 'alien' do the Rachni 'prove to be?'

Ah but the Rachni are not a social species they are hive species (1 mind commanding all others) that alters the dynamic slightly.  As for being alien look at their language, the way the Queen speaks to you (in both instances).  This indicates a way of viewing the world drastically different from ours.

Moiaussi wrote...
That assumes a couple things. First, that there is only one Queen and no additional Queens were produced (which is unlikely), and second, that they were formally indoctrianted rather than their communications coopted (in which case, the Noverian Queen knows what to watch for this time round. Even if they were indoctrinated, they know about that now so they know what to watch for.). Also, if there are any other Queens out there, then she might be able to help counter them and/or teach them what to watch for.

I'll give you the first assumption, but on the second; Cerberus knew what to watch for, Kenson knew what to watch for, you'll notice that didn't help them.  As for whether they were indoctrinated or comms jammed I think the fact that Rachni kept bein produced to fight them, and that the fighting had to be taken to the Queens to stop it, would indicate indoctrination.  Coopting communication would work for those Rachni more removed from the Queen but once the Queens realized something was wrong they wouldn't keep sending Rachni out they'd keep them close.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

They had no choice, there was no decision to make.  So it is not backwards.  I'm talking about Paragon and Renegade "decisions."

Just because we didn't have decisions to make doesn't mean that Shepard didn't, and you obviously didn't read any of the rest of what I said. How does Shepard benefit in the short term from freeing the Rachni Queen?

Shepard didn't have a choice, the Thorian (for example) would've kept making Asari clones and kept trying to kill Shepard and his crew.  It couldn't be talked down and stopped talking after a while, there wasn't a choice.

And I did read the rest of what you said... and the answer to your question is something I already mentioned.  

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
 Those species could die? Lets save them.

That's the short-term moral "right" that Paragon Shepard follows.  I'll post the rest of that quote for clarification's sake:

"For the major decisions, paragon choices are all about the short-term moral "right." Those species could die? Lets save them. Those people need help, lets help them. All other factors are irrelevant... no matter how large in scale those factors are.

Renegade choices are all about your long-term strategic "right." I want to save them but this threat will destroy everything including who I want to save... I've got to stop this monstrosity first. I want to do this but I can't risk destruction on a larger scale than what I can currently prevent. Outside factors are vital to this decision... especially if they're large in scale."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 02 juin 2011 - 11:34 .

[Rip504]

Rip504 wrote...
I honestly don't know what happen. The website keeps signing me out. Sorry for the incoherent bs,but I'm cooking so I'll do what I can for it later.!. Sorry

[ quote ] <Start. [ /quote ] <end

Modifié par Rip504, 02 juin 2011 - 11:42 .

[Clonedzero]

Moiaussi wrote...

It is always amusing and a little sad when people talking as if they are the most intelligent people around refuse to accept they are wrong on any given thing and declare reality stupid, just to retain their illusions of intelligence. Something can seem like the right answer, a no brainer, and still be wrong in reality. Sometimes that is because we miss or undervalue some details and sometimes reality is just strange. I advise an open mind.

I also would like to point out that concepts of right and wrong are not arbitrary. They have been developed over the entire course of human existance and are still and always a work in progress. They exist though because they generally work.

wow. way to be a condesending jerk for no reason.
im sorry i offended your fragile ego, there no reason to get so uppity about it buddy, its a damn game. relax alittle, you'll enjoy life more that way.

and yes. in a certain situations in the game, in context of whats going on with no metagaming knowledge some renegade options seem to be much smarter while the paragon ones take vast risks for silly reasons.

my point is that the game should sometimes reward you for making rational choices rather than picking the upper right choice everytime regardless of the context.

but seriously try not to make yourself look like such a tool, it doesnt help your case.

[Moiaussi]

Clonedzero wrote...

wow. way to be a condesending jerk for no reason.
im sorry i offended your fragile ego, there no reason to get so uppity about it buddy, its a damn game. relax alittle, you'll enjoy life more that way.

and yes. in a certain situations in the game, in context of whats going on with no metagaming knowledge some renegade options seem to be much smarter while the paragon ones take vast risks for silly reasons.

my point is that the game should sometimes reward you for making rational choices rather than picking the upper right choice everytime regardless of the context.

but seriously try not to make yourself look like such a tool, it doesnt help your case.

When you say things like 'the right thing vs the smart thing', particularly when you capitalize SMART, you are not exactly being respectful yourself. You have toned yourself down to 'seems smarter' now, which is a lot easier to respond to.

Even so you continue to dismiss the concept that those making different choices than you might also be making rational decisions and seem to be claiming that the 'upper right choice' is always irrational, completely ignoring arguements presented defending such choices.

And if you are going to call me out on being 'uppity', isn't your closing comment a bit hypocritical?

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Shepard didn't have a choice, the Thorian (for example) would've kept making Asari clones and kept trying to kill Shepard and his crew.  It couldn't be talked down and stopped talking after a while, there wasn't a choice.

Shepard could have shot his way out, punched or shot his way through the colonists attacking the Normandy (if needed) and left. That we didn't have the choice for Shepard to do so doesn't mean Shepard didn't have that choice.

Those species could die? Lets save them.

That's the short-term moral "right" that Paragon Shepard follows.  I'll post the rest of that quote for clarification's sake:

Other than feeling good about the decision, what short term tangible benefits does Shepard receive? How is that feeling any different from the similar immediate feeling the renegade gets from feeling they did something they believe in?

Renegade choices are all about your long-term strategic "right." I want to save them but this threat will destroy everything including who I want to save... I've got to stop this monstrosity first. I want to do this but I can't risk destruction on a larger scale than what I can currently prevent. Outside factors are vital to this decision... especially if they're large in scale."

Other than feeling immediately good, which again is offset by the renegade getting a similar feeling, what is the short term benefit to the paragon?

And how is any potential benefits from that race not a long term benefit? You might believe there are no such benefits and you obviously believe that any such benefits are outweighed by the risk. You presumably have your reasons to do so, but can you at least understand that others might feel differently? 

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Sorry didn't mean to imply it as a point against her just that there is another explanation.  As for not trying to rescue her what would you call repeatedly assaulting Ventralis' position despite "even animals know not to stick their noses where it hurts."  Yes it could be they were just in crazy kill mode but it's also possible they were attempting to break Ventralis' line and get to the labs beyond where the Queen was.

If they were trying to rescue the queen they would have feinted at Ventralis to keep him pinned down and concentrated on rescuing her. There was no indication they were doing any such thing. Keep in mind they are not animals. They are crazed sentient beings evolved as warriors and not as part of any conventional ecosystem. Crazed or inexperienced soldiers have been known to do things like mindlessly charge hardpoints.

You're right it doesn't mean she is lieing but it gives her a good reason to.  I generally agree that she probably was telling the truth and when I do kill her it's because of the threat represented by a Rachni change of heart further down the line rather than initial mistrust.  Back to the point however in most courts proving a witness is testifying under duress makes their testimony inaddmissable.

If it was a conventional court, her innocent plea would have been accepted in lieu of any evidence against her specificly.

I direct you to WW2 the war after the "War to end all wars."

I think you need to review your history. Germany wasn't disbanded, nor were the German people (including former German citizens) utterly eliminated. And that is not even getting into the Treaty of Versailles and its effects on the country. After WWII, though Germany was rebuilt and reuinited, and is an ally. When they were called on to provide troops for the Gulf war, they had to be convinced it was ok for them to join. They had to convince themselves too. Japan had similar issues.

The Rachni didn't just lose a war, they lost conclusively and did so against tech 3000 now years old.

Certainly, just meant to point out this isn't the 12 labours of Hercules or the fall of Troy this is something we know happened and have the details recorded at the time.

It is closer to those examples than you may think. It is much better documented, but Shepard hasn't studied the war and shows no indication of knowing much about it. He isn't in any position to research it at the time the decision has to be made either. And we as players certainly don't have anywhere near the level of detail you are talking about.

Ah but the Rachni are not a social species they are hive species (1 mind commanding all others) that alters the dynamic slightly.  As for being alien look at their language, the way the Queen speaks to you (in both instances).  This indicates a way of viewing the world drastically different from ours.

They are a social hive species. There are multiple queens and they don't command each other, at least not in the same way they command the drones. The Queen speaks of the comminications in very social, artistic terms. She also expresses remorse and respect for the fallen and treats the war as a tragedy. Just because they are alien doesn't mean they are completely different (which is actually a constant theme in ME).

I'll give you the first assumption, but on the second; Cerberus knew what to watch for, Kenson knew what to watch for, you'll notice that didn't help them.  As for whether they were indoctrinated or comms jammed I think the fact that Rachni kept bein produced to fight them, and that the fighting had to be taken to the Queens to stop it, would indicate indoctrination.  Coopting communication would work for those Rachni more removed from the Queen but once the Queens realized something was wrong they wouldn't keep sending Rachni out they'd keep them close.

The Queen knows what the signal sounds like, which is a lot more than Cerberus does. That means she knows what not to listen to and/or develop defences against.

Even to the extent Cerberus should know what to watch for, they don't seem to do a good job of it. They didn't rotate out indoctrinated researchers on the Reaper derelict. They didn't even warn Shepard. If they had rotated out at least some of the researchers, they could have studied indoctrination at different levels and perhaps studied whether it could be reversed at the early stages.

[Rip504]

Clonedzero wrote...

wow. way to be a condesending jerk for no reason.
im sorry i offended your fragile ego, there no reason to get so uppity about it buddy, its a damn game. relax alittle, you'll enjoy life more that way.

and yes. in a certain situations in the game, in context of whats going on with no metagaming knowledge some renegade options seem to be much smarter while the paragon ones take vast risks for silly reasons.

my point is that the game should sometimes reward you for making rational choices rather than picking the upper right choice everytime regardless of the context.

but seriously try not to make yourself look like such a tool, it doesnt help your case.

 Lol. An ego may have been hurt. 

I fully agree with Moiaussi in this case.

What certain situations are you talking about. ? I would like to know which Renegade choice is smarter then the Paragon choice which is a silly risk? You are saying this is smart and that is silly. Give us an example of what you are talking about. Back something up.

To be clear I only care about major plot events. The minor ones are just people b*tch*ng they didn't get what they wanted.

We have been over the rachni. Saving the Queen is not silly. ("Killing the Queen is smarter,." That is your opinion. Not facts. I disagree with you.)

Saving the Council is not silly.(Killing the council to focus on the reaper. Is smart,but smarter then having the Alien council execpt humanity. That's a strong symbol of trust and acceptance. It also helps unify the Galaxy.(Which we will be trying to do in ME3.)  I say it's smarter to save the council at the cost of human life, and show the rest of the galaxy humanity is willing to die for the saftey of all.. Now it's there turn to help us save Earth. Returning the Favor. More so then killing the Reaper we both kill anyway. Or an all human council,as it will be met with oppisition.)"Metagaming" is ME. Replay? We are talking about imported data. That's "Metagaming". It is simply a part of ME. If you do not like the way your choice effected your game,you can change it. Thats part of the reason ME is a great game.

Non "Metagaming" PoV.
Sitting there at the end of ME1,I knew saving the council would mean the first human seat on the council,and all that comes with it.
How big was the Destiny,How many were aboard it? How big our their weapons,compared to what was lost.
Saving that ship may have saved more lives then were lost altogether right there. And it makes humanity look good. It was a no brainer for me. Even more so when we had no trouble killing the Reaper.<Still a non "metagaming" PoV,just the end of the game confirming my beliefs!

Saving Wrex is not silly.(Is Killing Wrex smarter?)
ME2 maybe:
Rewriting the Heritics is not silly.(My Paragons usally destroy the Heritics,so I won't comment.)

Keeping Tali happy is deff not silly to me! (no comment.)

Curing the Krogan is not silly. ( Wrex and Grunt show us why.)

Destroying the Base is not silly. (We all know we can win without it. Period.,assumption&opinion!)

Saving David is not silly. ( It's humane,the Geth may not even pose a threat. And If the Geth oppose no threat,what is Project Overlord any good for?)


I know I am missing something, so go ahead and point it out.!.
I'm personally lost on this subject.
R.I.P. Saren...

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Shepard could have shot his way out, punched or shot his way through the colonists attacking the Normandy (if needed) and left. That we didn't have the choice for Shepard to do so doesn't mean Shepard didn't have that choice.

His objective was to bring order to the chaos... Shepard is still a hero no matter what choices you make.  There was no way around killing the Thorian because there was no other way to end that conflict with the Thorian.  If Shepard just left, nothing would've been solved.  The decisions are always "how" to solve a problem, not whether or not to solve them at all.

Other than feeling good about the decision, what short term tangible benefits does Shepard receive? How is that feeling any different from the similar immediate feeling the renegade gets from feeling they did something they believe in?

I'm not talking about the feeling Shepard gets after making a decision.  I'm talking about what drives their decision-making processes.  Paragons think in the short-term moral moment.  "Could they die?  Lets save them."  "Can we help?  Lets help them" without thinking past that point to outside factors. 

Renegades think in the long-term strategic moment.  "Can we risk it given the circumstances?"

And how is any potential benefits from that race not a long term benefit? You might believe there are no such benefits and you obviously believe that any such benefits are outweighed by the risk. You presumably have your reasons to do so, but can you at least understand that others might feel differently? 

Paragon decisions thusfar have provided the greatest long-term and short term benefits, that's what people are up in arms about compared to Renegade decisions.  The argument is that there's no need to really think about your decisions because the best outcome will always be the moral right of that instant... regardless of what's at stake at the time... and regardless of what's taken place beforehand.  Grey and Sacrifice does not exist in a Paragon decision, it's just people-pleasing and doing the morally righteous deed at every opportunity regardless of anything else. 

The other argument is, even in accepting a worse outcome for Renegade choices, there's less content on the impact of those choices.  There's also no mixed feeling about a Renegade decision during the aftermath, it's all negative... which also isn't realistic.  There's no real content you get for making a Renegade choice compared to making a Paragon choice.

I also understand that others may feel differently about why they chose (or didn't choose) a Paragon decision... but the problem and point is that there's a pandering to one way of thinking over others...

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

His objective was to bring order to the chaos... Shepard is still a hero no matter what choices you make.  There was no way around killing the Thorian because there was no other way to end that conflict with the Thorian.  If Shepard just left, nothing would've been solved.  The decisions are always "how" to solve a problem, not whether or not to solve them at all.

Walking away is 'ending conflict.' So is walking away and bombarding from orbit. So is walking away and threatening to bombard as a negotiation tool. As for Shepard being a 'hero', there are numerous side quests that are completely optional, all of which involve heroism.

I'm not talking about the feeling Shepard gets after making a decision.  I'm talking about what drives their decision-making processes.  Paragons think in the short-term moral moment.  "Could they die?  Lets save them."  "Can we help?  Lets help them" without thinking past that point to outside factors. 

Renegades think in the long-term strategic moment.  "Can we risk it given the circumstances?"

So you are telling me that I am lieing about how I make any paragon decision? When you are fighting Geth, 'they could die.' When you are fighting mercenaries 'they could die.' Shepard doesn't say 'OMG, they could die!' and just leave. The mercs could just be smuggling and not threatening any lives at the time, or in the case of Samara's recruitment mission you could just want information from them. You don't walk away even though you could, you stand and defend yourself. 

And how is any moral superiority felt by a paragon from helping or sparing someone any different from the moral superiority felt by a renegade for taking someone down that they consider a threat? Are you saying that the renegade doesn't feel good about the lives they believe they have just saved from that threat? They will never know who they saved. There is no obvious long term reward, it is just something they are taking on faith, and their feeling starts immediately.

Paragon decisions thusfar have provided the greatest long-term and short term benefits, that's what people are up in arms about compared to Renegade decisions.  The argument is that there's no need to really think about your decisions because the best outcome will always be the moral right of that instant... regardless of what's at stake at the time... and regardless of what's taken place beforehand.  Grey and Sacrifice does not exist in a Paragon decision, it's just people-pleasing and doing the morally righteous deed at every opportunity regardless of anything else. 

 
WHAT SHORT TERM BENEFITS? All you have done cited as short term is feeling good from 'doing right', but since renegades feel they are doing the right thing they feel the same feeling.

The other argument is, even in accepting a worse outcome for Renegade choices, there's less content on the impact of those choices.  There's also no mixed feeling about a Renegade decision during the aftermath, it's all negative... which also isn't realistic.  There's no real content you get for making a Renegade choice compared to making a Paragon choice.

When there is more content for paragon choices it is either cosmetic or it means a bad result. In other words, some renegades want their cake and to eat it to. They want to eliminate threats only to have them show up anyway.

I also understand that others may feel differently about why they chose (or didn't choose) a Paragon decision... but the problem and point is that there's a pandering to one way of thinking over others...

In ME2, we all work with Cerberus whether we want to or not. If we saved the Council, we get insulted. We get told the Rachni will likely be an ally if they were spared, but if they are and are not a liability after all, it won't be until ME3. We have reason to believe saving the base will turn out to be a bad decision, but it might just mean you get to re-storm it again (which would be that more content you keep comlpaining about paragons getting). Note that if you do get to re-storm it, not only would you get the extra content, but you would indeed end up with the base, so you could actually be better off after all.

I'd understand the concern more if there was any obvious advantage to either philosophy in ME2. As for ME3, I am betting it will turn out that the absolute best outcome will come from choosing a little of column A and a little of column B, just like reality. I also wouldn't be surprised if paragon ME1 decisions turn out best and renegade ME3 decisions turn out best, witn ME2 being a mix. The more desperate the situation, the more collateral damage becomes acceptable.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 03 juin 2011 - 06:19 .

[Rip504]

Jesus really? Yes a paragon helps every chance they get. Wow get over it. My paragon thinks beyond the here and now. That statement is just wrong. I think about the different outcomes when making a paragon choice.If it were to effect something longterm I may have to deal with that situation differently. That's MassEffect.

Renegades get imported content. Yes you do. Chack again. You are complaining about Shiala,Gianni,Rachni and Raya I think. 1:30 secs of content is what you are up in arms about? Also Wrex,but Wreav replaces him fully,Shiala is replaced also. You can get the discount at the store,the same one you get from Gianni. What content are you missing or lacking? It is there,just looks different.

Paragon and Renegade have very close to the same amount of content. There is no great gap. Pandering? Or consistent? If you start hurting the player senselessly it's going to become an inconsistent playthrough..
During a situation there are many different ways of doing things. Just because you play as one or the other doesn't mean you have to stay in the Red or Blue the entire game. It's about choice.If you choose to stay in the Red the entire time,don't complain about a bit of minimal content that you feel someone else is getting when you should be. When you help,save,and treat people good there are usally long term positive effects. That's realistic
I
t is my understanding that Bioware created the Renegade to be "badass". Renegades are not ment to be politcal masterminds. This isn't the way of the closed fist. I enjpyed my Renegade playthroughs.I didn't feel ripped off personally.

I understand you wanting more content,so do I. But there is no reason to change how the morality system works. I do understand.. You wished that Helena Blake would have shot Paragon Shepard in the back,mainly so you could laugh. If you are not a Paragon why are you asking Bioware to punish someone else for you? I feel ME3 will deff distribute the benifits evenly. The choices made in ME2 demand resolution. That's something the renegade didn't have in ME1.


Paragon/Renegade playthroughs ARE suppose to be different. And they are. Paragon is no better then Renegade,it is just different. Nothing in the 2 games so far benifit one over the other. Why do you think this will change? What benifits does Paragon Shepard have over Renegade Shepard from an ME1 import?
Wrex=Wreav
Shiala=Whoever
Random Asari=Nothing
Rachni=nothing
Council=council
??? None of these benifit either Shepard. Some would say a Renegade is richer then a Paragon.

Modifié par Rip504, 03 juin 2011 - 07:13 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
Walking away is 'ending conflict.' So is walking away and bombarding from orbit. So is walking away and threatening to bombard as a negotiation tool. As for Shepard being a 'hero', there are numerous side quests that are completely optional, all of which involve heroism.

Walking away is contradictory to your mission.  As a hero, you have to complete your mission.  Bombing from orbit also has no way to personally confirm success without actually going back down there.  The Thorian wasn't exactly top-side and there's still innocent people on the planet.

So you are telling me that I am lieing about how I make any paragon decision? When you are fighting Geth, 'they could die.' When you are fighting mercenaries 'they could die.' Shepard doesn't say 'OMG, they could die!' and just leave. The mercs could just be smuggling and not threatening any lives at the time, or in the case of Samara's recruitment mission you could just want information from them. You don't walk away even though you could, you stand and defend yourself. 

And how is any moral superiority felt by a paragon from helping or sparing someone any different from the moral superiority felt by a renegade for taking someone down that they consider a threat? Are you saying that the renegade doesn't feel good about the lives they believe they have just saved from that threat? They will never know who they saved. There is no obvious long term reward, it is just something they are taking on faith, and their feeling starts immediately.

Those people were trying to kill you, there is no chance to save them.  You rarely carry nonlethal weapons and running away wouid prevent you from completing your mission.  There is no option there.  But when there are options, that's what we're talking about.

And to further clarify, I'm not talking about how they feel about a decision they make, but the decision-making process.  The Paragon process/focus is on the moral right of the moment.  "If they need help, help them" etc.

Renegades don't focus on the moral moment, they generally go for the solution that negates as much risk to the mission as possible.  The long term and short term benefits are the aftermath of those decisions.  I'm not talking about how they feel about making a decision, I'm talking about what each focuses on in making their decision.

 

WHAT SHORT TERM BENEFITS? All you have done cited as short term is feeling good from 'doing right', but since renegades feel they are doing the right thing they feel the same feeling.

Paragon for Council decision:
Short-term benefits
1.  The Council was saved
2.  The smallest amount of lives were lost in the attempt. 
3.  Sovereign is destroyed.

Long-term benefits
1.  You get to see the Council
2.  All positive press (ultimately) and praise.
3.  Alien appreciation
4.  Council wants to reinstate your spectre status


Renegade for Council decision:
Short-term benefits
1.Sovereign is destroyed.

Long-term benefits:
1. New Council is there somewhere?... didn't really end up being beneficial, you never see or hear from them

When there is more content for paragon choices it is either cosmetic or it means a bad result. In other words, some renegades want their cake and to eat it to. They want to eliminate threats only to have them show up anyway.

Incorrect.  They want a consequence that's actual content.  If the new council hates Shepard, they could've said it in person... no unique content for Renegades.  That's different from having cake and eating it too.

In ME2, we all work with Cerberus whether we want to or not. If we saved the Council, we get insulted. We get told the Rachni will likely be an ally if they were spared, but if they are and are not a liability after all, it won't be until ME3. We have reason to believe saving the base will turn out to be a bad decision, but it might just mean you get to re-storm it again (which would be that more content you keep comlpaining about paragons getting). Note that if you do get to re-storm it, not only would you get the extra content, but you would indeed end up with the base, so you could actually be better off after all.

I'd understand the concern more if there was any obvious advantage to either philosophy in ME2. As for ME3, I am betting it will turn out that the absolute best outcome will come from choosing a little of column A and a little of column B, just like reality. I also wouldn't be surprised if paragon ME1 decisions turn out best and renegade ME3 decisions turn out best, witn ME2 being a mix. The more desperate the situation, the more collateral damage becomes acceptable.

I'm not sure if you're understanding the 2-fold issue.  On one hand, the Council insults Paragons (sort of, they just have doubts about you because you were resurrected by Cerberus), but there's no Renegade Council at all.  See the difference?  The Rachni queen herself (through a proxy) relays a message to you implying that they'll fight for you... and that's in ME2 (more content).  There's no real equivalent scenario for Renegades, there's just nothing there.  If there's no "right" answer, then where's the support for a Renegade choice?  It's not there. 

And true to my theory, Paragons destroy the collector base because of the moral instant fact of the place being "bad" and had to be destroyed.  And once more, in the face of galactic extinction with no answer for the Reapers.  And the Paragon decision is once-more fully supported by everyone... everyone, lol.

The advantage is obvious in ME1 and ME2.  Paragon decisions save more lives and win more love while the actual threats are always dealt with regardless.  The only difference is that Paragon decisions present a more favored outcome in-game.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Walking away is contradictory to your mission.  As a hero, you have to complete your mission.  Bombing from orbit also has no way to personally confirm success without actually going back down there.  The Thorian wasn't exactly top-side and there's still innocent people on the planet.

Other than the game making that part of the mission manditory, there is nothing to indicate to Shepard that Feros is absolutely neccessary. He doesn't know about Shiala yet, and his choice if he stays involves killing the Thorian, in which case he would expect to get nothing.

As for the colonists, let me get this straight. You are defending the renegade position but insist you must protect them at all costs?

Those people were trying to kill you, there is no chance to save them.  You rarely carry nonlethal weapons and running away wouid prevent you from completing your mission.  There is no option there.  But when there are options, that's what we're talking about.

Of course there is an option. You can walk away. You can work without Samara.

And to further clarify, I'm not talking about how they feel about a decision they make, but the decision-making process.  The Paragon process/focus is on the moral right of the moment.  "If they need help, help them" etc.

Renegades don't focus on the moral moment, they generally go for the solution that negates as much risk to the mission as possible.  The long term and short term benefits are the aftermath of those decisions.  I'm not talking about how they feel about making a decision, I'm talking about what each focuses on in making their decision.

We are going in circles here. The mission itself is short term. And the renegades think they are doing the 'moral right' thing too. They just interpret risk differently. "If they need help, help them" still applies. Renegades just think that sparing whoever isn't helping, but is puting more people at risk, whereas taking a harsher immediate approach eliminates a threat and thus helps more people in the long run. You really seem to have a blind spot to this.

 

Paragon for Council decision:
Short-term benefits
1.  The Council was saved

That is a short term loss. They dismiss you and write you off.

2.  The smallest amount of lives were lost in the attempt. 

We don't actually know that. We don't get comparative figures for the entire battle. We get to learn how many ships were lost specificly saving the DA, but other than that we don't know.

3.  Sovereign is destroyed.

Umm..... that happens for renegades too.

Incorrect.  They want a consequence that's actual content.  If the new council hates Shepard, they could've said it in person... no unique content for Renegades.  That's different from having cake and eating it too.

The 'extra content' is a Council that air quotes at you. As for renegades, why would a new council do anything in person with someone who considers them expendable, especially since that someone has started working for an agency that is now linked to political assassinations (Cerberus)?

I'm not sure if you're understanding the 2-fold issue.  On one hand, the Council insults Paragons (sort of, they just have doubts about you because you were resurrected by Cerberus), but there's no Renegade Council at all.  See the difference?  The Rachni queen herself (through a proxy) relays a message to you implying that they'll fight for you... and that's in ME2 (more content).  There's no real equivalent scenario for Renegades, there's just nothing there.  If there's no "right" answer, then where's the support for a Renegade choice?  It's not there. 

And true to my theory, Paragons destroy the collector base because of the moral instant fact of the place being "bad" and had to be destroyed.  And once more, in the face of galactic extinction with no answer for the Reapers.  And the Paragon decision is once-more fully supported by everyone... everyone, lol.

The advantage is obvious in ME1 and ME2.  Paragon decisions save more lives and win more love while the actual threats are always dealt with regardless.  The only difference is that Paragon decisions present a more favored outcome in-game.

And the Rachni could show up and be immediately indocrinated for all we know. And that is only a decision we know about. There could be other decisions we don't know the results from that go badly for paragons or better for renegades. And what additional content do you expect from killing the Rachni anyway? Why in blazes do you expect killing off a race should mean you get some other race as an ally as some sort of compensation?

Gosh, saving lives wins more love. They didn't win all that much love. Your crew is loyal to you, but they are loyal to renegades too and noone else really bends over backwards for you. Its looking like even Hackett sells you out in the end.

As for the Rachni being 'extra content', why should killing a race magicly grant you some other race in compensation? Just listen to yourself.

[Mecha Tengu]

just give us one paragon choice that ends up biting us back in the ass
(ex: Americans funding afghan freedom fighters to fight the soviets would later ironically benefit the terrorist groups that attacked America)

all I'm asking. An unpredictable paragon choice for once.

[Moiaussi]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

just give us one paragon choice that ends up biting us back in the ass
(ex: Americans funding afghan freedom fighters to fight the soviets would later ironically benefit the terrorist groups that attacked America)

all I'm asking. An unpredictable paragon choice for once.

I am still betting that the Feros survivors will end up costing paragons. Also, the collector base could end up a short term loss but they could reuse the same content and give renegades more content to clear (taking it back from Cerberus) and letting them end up with it after all if they are willing to put in the extra work to recapture it.

Those are of course just guesses. Other possibilities include rewriting the heretics meaning a larger enemy heretic fleet on the enemy side in ME3, and saving the genophage cure meaning Cerberus (and thus the Reapers) end up with a Krogan army too. That might be offset by Wrex leading his own genophage-free army, but that would still pretty much cancel out. The renegade decision to agree with the genophage and destroy the cure could mean a regular Krogan army under Wrex.

Those are just possiblilties that come to me easily. I am sure I can think of more if I actually stop to think about them.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Other than the game making that part of the mission manditory, there is nothing to indicate to Shepard that Feros is absolutely neccessary. He doesn't know about Shiala yet, and his choice if he stays involves killing the Thorian, in which case he would expect to get nothing.

As for the colonists, let me get this straight. You are defending the renegade position but insist you must protect them at all costs?

It's mandatory, so it's necessary.  To restate, we're talking about Paragon and Renegade choices.  If there's no choice to be made there, then there's nothing to talk about.

And as for the colonists, your goal is to give the colony back to them by removing the Thorian and Geth threat to the place.  A Renegade would never abandon the actual target just so he can have an increased chance of killing innocent civilians.

Of course there is an option. You can walk away. You can work without Samara.

Samara is someone Shepard can recruit "for" the mission, she's not the mission itself.  No Shepard can walk away from the suicide mission.  To restate, lets stick to the actual Paragon/Renegade choices.

We are going in circles here. The mission itself is short term. And the renegades think they are doing the 'moral right' thing too. They just interpret risk differently. "If they need help, help them" still applies. Renegades just think that sparing whoever isn't helping, but is puting more people at risk, whereas taking a harsher immediate approach eliminates a threat and thus helps more people in the long run. You really seem to have a blind spot to this.

We're not going in circles, you're just thinking in circles for some reason.  The mission's outcome is where the short term and long term benefits come from.  It's nothing more than that.  And no, Renegades do not think they're always doing the "moral right."  They feel that they're doing what it takes to accomplish the mission at hand... which may not always be the "ideal" scenario.  "If I had my way there'd be peace on earth everywhere with bunnies and kittens, etc... but in the real world it's not that simple."  Except that in the Mass Effect games it actually is that simple... and not only that, but Renegades actually get less content for thinking in the more realistic way.

 

That is a short term loss. They dismiss you and write you off.

lol, I'd say that's hardly the case at all.  First of all, they actually see you and personally grant you your spectre status.  The Council has no jurisdiction in the terminus systems and yet they still allow Shepard to work on their behalf... and even more, they allow him to continue working with Cerberus... an avowed enemy of the Council.  They permitted you to commit treason and wished you all the best... hardly a write off.

 

We don't actually know that. We don't get comparative figures for the entire battle. We get to learn how many ships were lost specificly saving the DA, but other than that we don't know.

We know what they show, naturally, and they showed that Paragons saved more lives and loss less lives while still completing the mission just as easily (if not easier) than their Renegade counterparts.  More lives were saved on the Ascension than were sent to save it.

Umm..... that happens for renegades too.

Yeah... this is the Paragon benefits section.  The Renegade section has that listed for them too.

The 'extra content' is a Council that air quotes at you. As for renegades, why would a new council do anything in person with someone who considers them expendable, especially since that someone has started working for an agency that is now linked to political assassinations (Cerberus)?

I already talked about how the Council (though doubting like they always do) show you as much support as they can with you working outside of their jurisdiction.

As far as the new Council, their reaction is unrealistic.  No matter what choice you make, Shepard is the "Hero of the Battle at the Citadel."  No one else saved the Council either... or stopped Sovereign.  The Geth and Reaper Vanguard decimated the entire Alliance fleet without any trouble.  Had Shepard not have defeated the SarenReaperProxy, none of the weapons would've made it through the Reaper shields and the domination would've continued.  To focus on that threat is hardly viewing someone else as expendable.  And any personal feeling Shepard had about the Council would've only been known to Shepard...

And the Rachni could show up and be immediately indocrinated for all we know. And that is only a decision we know about. There could be other decisions we don't know the results from that go badly for paragons or better for renegades. And what additional content do you expect from killing the Rachni anyway? Why in blazes do you expect killing off a race should mean you get some other race as an ally as some sort of compensation?

Gosh, saving lives wins more love. They didn't win all that much love. Your crew is loyal to you, but they are loyal to renegades too and noone else really bends over backwards for you. Its looking like even Hackett sells you out in the end.

As for the Rachni being 'extra content', why should killing a race magicly grant you some other race in compensation? Just listen to yourself.

We're both only going off of what we know, and thusfar.. no major decision has ever gone badly for Paragons and those decisions hinge on the short-term moral "right" of that moment (regardless of any outside factors).  Having passed 2 of their 3 games, I think we have enough to start talking about regarding this trend.

I also never, ever said we should get a race to replace the Rachni if they were killed.  But there should've been "some" content equivalent to the queen's appearance.  Shepard could've ran into someone from the labs...  That would've been a fine equivalent to the Rachni queen proxy cameo.  But instead, there's absolutely nothing there.  I personally always save the Rachni and I still notice this.

There's nothing wrong with saving lives.  But Paragon/Renegade decisions are not about what you do, it's what you intend to do.  You can "intend" to save someone and fail.  However, the Paragons never fail (regardless of what stands up against that ideal choice)... which defeats the entire point of making a tough decision (the short-term moral right always wins).  And on top of that, they get more content than Renegades.  That's the issue.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 juin 2011 - 07:54 .

[Seboist]

The lopsided pro-paragon bias sunshine and rainbows outcomes hurts the Paragon choices as much as they do the Renegade ones. The Paragon choices become utterly boring and without substance when you know everything is going to work out just fine.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It's mandatory, so it's necessary.  To restate, we're talking about Paragon and Renegade choices.  If there's no choice to be made there, then there's nothing to talk about.

And as for the colonists, your goal is to give the colony back to them by removing the Thorian and Geth threat to the place.  A Renegade would never abandon the actual target just so he can have an increased chance of killing innocent civilians.

A renegade wouldn't abandon the target to have an increased chance of killing civilians, but they might to have an increased ability to reduce overall risk. A paragon could take data with them from the site and look for a counter to the spores so that they could rescue the colonists and not have to kill the Thorian.

Samara is someone Shepard can recruit "for" the mission, she's not the mission itself.  No Shepard can walk away from the suicide mission.  To restate, lets stick to the actual Paragon/Renegade choices.

The point is that Shepard doesn't have to recruit Samara to go on or succeed on the suicide mission. Recruiting her at all is a choice.

We're not going in circles, you're just thinking in circles for some reason.  The mission's outcome is where the short term and long term benefits come from.  It's nothing more than that.  And no, Renegades do not think they're always doing the "moral right."  They feel that they're doing what it takes to accomplish the mission at hand... which may not always be the "ideal" scenario.  "If I had my way there'd be peace on earth everywhere with bunnies and kittens, etc... but in the real world it's not that simple."  Except that in the Mass Effect games it actually is that simple... and not only that, but Renegades actually get less content for thinking in the more realistic way.

So renegades think they are doing the wrong thing?

They are not merely doing what it takes to accomplish the mission. The Rachni Queen is irrelevant to the mission. She has no bearing on the mission at all regardless of how you decide. Nor are renegade decisions the only means of accomplishing the mission so presumably there is more to it than simply 'what it takes to accomplish the mission.' 

Just because you think renegade decisions are more realistic doesn't make them so.

 

lol, I'd say that's hardly the case at all.  First of all, they actually see you and personally grant you your spectre status.  The Council has no jurisdiction in the terminus systems and yet they still allow Shepard to work on their behalf... and even more, they allow him to continue working with Cerberus... an avowed enemy of the Council.  They permitted you to commit treason and wished you all the best... hardly a write off.

They give you token status that means absolutely nothing. The only time it comes up in ME2 you can say 'former spectre' and get exactly the same result. They don't 'allow' Shepard to work in Terminus. They banish him there, which is a complete insult after they forbade him from entering there at all in ME1. They are essentially saying 'you are a joke and an embarassment and noone is going to take you seriously, so we are sending you into enemy terrirtory to minimize any damage you cause.'

Allowing you to continue working with Cerberus happens if you kill the council too. The new council don't order your arrest either.

 

We know what they show, naturally, and they showed that Paragons saved more lives and loss less lives while still completing the mission just as easily (if not easier) than their Renegade counterparts.  More lives were saved on the Ascension than were sent to save it.

Where is this shown? Where are there any casualty figures for the entire battle in both situations?

I already talked about how the Council (though doubting like they always do) show you as much support as they can with you working outside of their jurisdiction.

As far as the new Council, their reaction is unrealistic.  No matter what choice you make, Shepard is the "Hero of the Battle at the Citadel."  No one else saved the Council either... or stopped Sovereign.  The Geth and Reaper Vanguard decimated the entire Alliance fleet without any trouble.  Had Shepard not have defeated the SarenReaperProxy, none of the weapons would've made it through the Reaper shields and the domination would've continued.  To focus on that threat is hardly viewing someone else as expendable.  And any personal feeling Shepard had about the Council would've only been known to Shepard...

It is exactly considering them expendable. That is what expendable means. It means that your lives are forfiet if the success of the mission requires, or is even deemed to so require.

And consider how many here take that decision as 'killing the Council' instead of 'concentrating on Saren'

We're both only going off of what we know, and thusfar.. no major decision has ever gone badly for Paragons and those decisions hinge on the short-term moral "right" of that moment (regardless of any outside factors).  Having passed 2 of their 3 games, I think we have enough to start talking about regarding this trend.

I also never, ever said we should get a race to replace the Rachni if they were killed.  But there should've been "some" content equivalent to the queen's appearance.  Shepard could've ran into someone from the labs...  That would've been a fine equivalent to the Rachni queen proxy cameo.  But instead, there's absolutely nothing there.  I personally always save the Rachni and I still notice this.

There's nothing wrong with saving lives.  But Paragon/Renegade decisions are not about what you do, it's what you intend to do.  You can "intend" to save someone and fail.  However, the Paragons never fail (regardless of what stands up against that ideal choice)... which defeats the entire point of making a tough decision (the short-term moral right always wins).  And on top of that, they get more content than Renegades.  That's the issue.

In Zaheed's loyalty mission, doesn't the criminal get away? They do not get to rescue the workers and catch the bad guy. Little merc girl in Samara's loyalty mission turns out to be guilty of the murder you are trying to solve, but gets away, too.

There was no intent to let either get away.

As for the Rachni, anyone Shepard could have run into 'instead' would have been just as available to show up for paragons. You are talking about realism but want a completely gratuitous 'compensation' encounter?

[Rip504]

Modifié par Rip504, 03 juin 2011 - 11:36 .

[Clonedzero]

Seboist wrote...

The lopsided pro-paragon bias sunshine and rainbows outcomes hurts the Paragon choices as much as they do the Renegade ones. The Paragon choices become utterly boring and without substance when you know everything is going to work out just fine.

exactly my point.

theres no weight to the choices anymore. the FIRST TIME i played ME1. i didn't know top choice was paragon and bottom was renegade. i thought it was just wheel or dialogue choices.

whenever a choice came up, i didnt think of it at all in terms of paragon or renegade. i thought about the problem and thought about what could go wrong if i did something, i had no preknowledge of how any of the choices would turn out.

i was full paragon except for 2 choices. the rachni and the council. i didnt make those choices because i was paragon or renegade. i made them because of the actual choice and what i thought the consquences might be. the rachni. i kept hearing throughout the entire game up till that point how the rachni almost killed everything in the galaxy, how they were a hyper aggressive, territorial and fast breeding insect race. i killed it because it was just one creature, and it was a massive danger to everything else in the galaxy based off all the history i had heard at that point. i thought that if i let it go, it'd probably infest planets, and spread like crazy.

the council. i actually thought we could lose the fight against sovereign and i could get an ending where we lose. the DA was flying away not helping and it just had the council who werent really all that helpful. plus i figured an advanced civilization on a galactic scale would have "vice council members" should any of them die lol. so i focused on sovereign.

later on finding out both of these choices turn out super lovely and happy like every other paragon choice it sorta took the magic out of the game for me. the choices arent really choices anymore, they'r ejust "do i wanna be a jerk, or a nice guy?" its not "well i have to actually think about this choice".

thats my issue. with every paragon choice turning out super well, it ruins the entire concept of making the choices. paragons are supposed to be the morally upstanding guys, and renegades are supposed to be the willing to do anything for the greater good. but if all the choices turn out better for paragons for the whole greater good then whats the point of making the hard choices?

theres no hard choices in mass effect. its all simply "do i wanna be a nice guy or a jerk?". theres no hard calls. no choices that you actually have ot think about. once you realize that it works like that it completely trivializes all the choices in the game.

don't you see that as a problem? i want choices to be more than paragon vs. renegade in ME3. i want consequences to be more than paragon vs. renegade. its distressing that you dont see that as a problem.