904 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
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.

All the while, the Thorian is killing colonists and the Geth aren't dealt with...  it'd be a waste of time.  The Thorian is an enemy and would only continue to kill if left alive.  There was no choice there and that was likely the reason.

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.

A choice... but not a Paragon/Renegade choice.

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.

No, being "right" and being "morally right" are two different things.  You could looove to save that kitten (the morally right thing), but if you don't disarm this bomb ASAP everyone will be dead (and currently there's no known way to disarm it and the clock is ticking).  A Renegade would disarm the bomb because the risk is considered too high to do the morally immediate thing of saving a helpless kitten.  The Paragon would save the kitten and the bomb would give them time to do that without any negative consequence.
The decision to save the kitten (given those odds) is not the most realistic response (it's actually risking the lives of every living thing for the sake of a kitten).  It's the most optimistic and a short-term moral decision... but also reckless to the mission of stopping the bomb.
 

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.

It's the same status you had in Mass Effect 1... no different at all.  Also, Shepard's work 'is' in the Terminus systems... that's where all the abductions are taking place.  There's nothing else they can do.

Regarding the new Council... they weren't there at all, lol so naturally they couldn't do anything.  They don't do anything or say anything because they're just not there.

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

In the interview with Al-Jilani, the numbers are gone over.  As far as a super-detailed war numbers chart, that content is not available... lol see the problem?

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'

Not holding a group above all known life in the galaxy (including the group in question) is not the same as viewing that group as "expendable."  Also the pure renegade option is "Let the Council die" while the neutral choice is "Concentrate on Sovereign."  Because they have the exact same outcome I lump them together.

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?

Zaeed's loyalty mission was an errand for Shepard.  Not a major choice.  Additionally, Zaeed got what he deserved for doing what he did.  It was still a short-term moral right (Save these people) and the short-term benefit fell on Zaeed as karma. 

And as far as the Rachni cameo equivalent.  It doesn't matter if any Shepard could have something happen.  The point is unique content for each decision made.  Coming across old associates and old acquaintances are hardly unrealistic.  The only time it would actually be unrealistic is if their presence just happened to coincide with a mission they could help you on.  But for the cameos, they do no such thing... so they're a completely realistic and random chance encounter.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 04 juin 2011 - 01:01 .

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Probably yes, and as I said I do believe her to be sincere but that's not always enough for my Sheps (50/50).

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

My point was both sides called it that, both sides never wanted to go through that again, no rational person would have started another war after having gone through it, and yet 20 years later we had another "war to end all wars," because even if there is no rational reason to do something, and every rational reason not to, we aren't rational.  No individual that experiences emotion can ever be relied upon to be rational.

I agree they'd probably side with us against the Reapers, but who's to say they won't turn their attention on the people who tried to wipe them out and feel absolutely no remorse for it.

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Fair enough, my initial point was more a personal peeve than anything else.  I'm big on calling things what they are (it's why people calling Cerberus a terrorist organization gets on my nerves).  The Rachni War is no more a myth than the Hundred Years War.  No we don't have all the info, yes there is misinformation out there, no I personally don't know the details but that doesn't make it a myth.

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Hmm hadn't considered the rather unique way the signal is perceived by the Rachni.  Still knowing you're being indoctrinated (or indoctrination attempts are being made) is one thing, stopping them is another.

[Ausstig]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
[quote]I direct you to WW2 the war after the "War to end all wars."[/quote]

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.
[quote]


 I think YOU need to review history After world war two Germany did cease to exist. It divided and occupied by Four foreign nations, West Germany was rebuilt to be used as a defense against the Eastern Bloc nations. It was not until 44 years after the end of the war that Germany was reunited. Germany as had existed since Frederic the Great founded Prussia, ceased to exist following World War 2, it would then exist as West Germany and East Germany until, 1989. 

Modifié par Ausstig, 04 juin 2011 - 02:51 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

All the while, the Thorian is killing colonists and the Geth aren't dealt with...  it'd be a waste of time.  The Thorian is an enemy and would only continue to kill if left alive.  There was no choice there and that was likely the reason.

The Thorian isn't killing the civilians. It is keeping them around as slave labour  and only using them as fertilizer when they serve no useful purpose mobile. It has survived through multiple reaper cycles. It doesn't need humans as food.

As for dealing with it and the geth as a renegade, as I said, glass craters tell no tales.

A choice... but not a Paragon/Renegade choice.

So this is only about choices labelled paragon or renegade, and not about actual playstyle then?

No, being "right" and being "morally right" are two different things.  You could looove to save that kitten (the morally right thing), but if you don't disarm this bomb ASAP everyone will be dead (and currently there's no known way to disarm it and the clock is ticking).  A Renegade would disarm the bomb because the risk is considered too high to do the morally immediate thing of saving a helpless kitten.  The Paragon would save the kitten and the bomb would give them time to do that without any negative consequence.
The decision to save the kitten (given those odds) is not the most realistic response (it's actually risking the lives of every living thing for the sake of a kitten).  It's the most optimistic and a short-term moral decision... but also reckless to the mission of stopping the bomb.

But I gave two examples where paragons don't get both.

 

It's the same status you had in Mass Effect 1... no different at all.  Also, Shepard's work 'is' in the Terminus systems... that's where all the abductions are taking place.  There's nothing else they can do.

Regarding the new Council... they weren't there at all, lol so naturally they couldn't do anything.  They don't do anything or say anything because they're just not there.

There are all sorts of situations in ME1 where you get respect for being a Spectre. Noveria being one, where you wouldn't even be allowed on the planet if you weren't one. Support and respect from a STG team on Vermire. Not to mention access to Spectre gear, which was the best in the game.

In the interview with Al-Jilani, the numbers are gone over.  As far as a super-detailed war numbers chart, that content is not available... lol see the problem?

I see you thinking you heard something that isn't there. There is no list of the total casualties from the battle in either interview. There isn't enough information to conclude which was better tacticly.

Not holding a group above all known life in the galaxy (including the group in question) is not the same as viewing that group as "expendable."  Also the pure renegade option is "Let the Council die" while the neutral choice is "Concentrate on Sovereign."  Because they have the exact same outcome I lump them together.

That is exactly what 'expendable' means. If they weren't expendable, then they would have to live for the war to be a victory.

Zaeed's loyalty mission was an errand for Shepard.  Not a major choice.  Additionally, Zaeed got what he deserved for doing what he did.  It was still a short-term moral right (Save these people) and the short-term benefit fell on Zaeed as karma. 

And as far as the Rachni cameo equivalent.  It doesn't matter if any Shepard could have something happen.  The point is unique content for each decision made.  Coming across old associates and old acquaintances are hardly unrealistic.  The only time it would actually be unrealistic is if their presence just happened to coincide with a mission they could help you on.  But for the cameos, they do no such thing... so they're a completely realistic and random chance encounter.

It was no more nor less an errand than Samara's loyalty mission. And now this is 'major' choices only? Who gets to define 'major?'

I am sure that the families of the victims of the criminal that got away will feel so much better about their losses because it was Zaheed's fault rather than Shepard's. Even though Zaheed set up the situation it is still Shepard's choice as to how to deal with it.

As for cameos, why would a renegade have more chance to come across old comrades randomly than a paragon? The paragon is coming across them due to their actions. If the encounters you want are 'random' then they would occur equally for both and you wouldn't have the balancing you claim to want.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are changing the defintions now from 'paragons always win' to 'paragons always win on major issues' (even though the Rachni is the only one so far and we can't be completely sure of anything til ME3 is out).

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Probably yes, and as I said I do believe her to be sincere but that's not always enough for my Sheps (50/50).

Fair enough. As i have said it is a really tough decision and I respect that others decide differently. What bothers me is when people spout off about it being an easy decision and insulting those who decide differently simply on that basis.

My point was both sides called it that, both sides never wanted to go through that again, no rational person would have started another war after having gone through it, and yet 20 years later we had another "war to end all wars," because even if there is no rational reason to do something, and every rational reason not to, we aren't rational.  No individual that experiences emotion can ever be relied upon to be rational.

I agree they'd probably side with us against the Reapers, but who's to say they won't turn their attention on the people who tried to wipe them out and feel absolutely no remorse for it.

WWI was a stupid nationalistic war that set the stage for WWII. I'd argue WWI didn't really end until the end of WWII. It just had a 20 year cease fire. We didn't 'try to wipe them out' for no reason at all. They were trying to wipe us out at the time. We showed up in their territory, they overreacted and tried to eliminate all of us, and paid the price for that level of agression. Communications were not possible so diplomacy was not possible. Neither side gave quarter so neither side could expect quarter.

The reason for them not trying again is mutually assured destruction, the same reason that keeps major powers from fighting each other in RL. The course of the Rachni war is pretty conclusive proof of how badly it could go for them if they try again, and next time they might not be this lucky. Meanwhile, we have communications now and they have reason to consider us worth talking with. That means they have incentive to work with us. And this time, we have much better tech and likely wouldn't need the Krogan, since the main reason they were needed was for hostile environments and we have suits that can handle that now.

Note also that the Rachni Queen would know about the genophage, which was developed after the war. Our ability to produce WMD's exceeds their abilty to reproduce themselves.

If we beat the Reapers with only modest support from them, then they would have even more reason to respect our military strength. Even more so if we get no support from them at all. If they are instrumental to beating the Reapers (i.e. we can't win without them) ,then without them we die anyway, so any risk of future war is moot.

You are right of course that despite all this they could go to war again anyway, which is why I consider it a tough decision.

Fair enough, my initial point was more a personal peeve than anything else.  I'm big on calling things what they are (it's why people calling Cerberus a terrorist organization gets on my nerves).  The Rachni War is no more a myth than the Hundred Years War.  No we don't have all the info, yes there is misinformation out there, no I personally don't know the details but that doesn't make it a myth.

It is not just a question of misinformation... I am working with the information we do have. Our entry into their space somehow triggered the war. No communications (and thus no diplomacy) was possible. We won using 3000 year old tech, and the Krogan were not needed so much for numbers but more for hazardous environments.

That is a lot more relevant information than simply 'they nearly wiped us all out,' which is the core of the arguement for killing her.

Hmm hadn't considered the rather unique way the signal is perceived by the Rachni.  Still knowing you're being indoctrinated (or indoctrination attempts are being made) is one thing, stopping them is another.

I agree completely. There is still a risk and it could still end up biting us (in the case of the Rachni, literally, lol).

By the way, I would like to say that it is refreshing to discuss this with someone who is willing to think this through. You make good points and I respect you for that.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

The Thorian isn't killing the civilians. It is keeping them around as slave labour  and only using them as fertilizer when they serve no useful purpose mobile. It has survived through multiple reaper cycles. It doesn't need humans as food.

As for dealing with it and the geth as a renegade, as I said, glass craters tell no tales.

The Thorian had total control over a lot of the colonists and saw them all as "meat, good only to dig or decompose."  There's no reconciling with that creature and that brain overriding caused one of the civilians to kill themself.  The Thorian had to be stopped if the colonists were to actually "live" there. 

So this is only about choices labelled paragon or renegade, and not about actual playstyle then?

Correct.  The major Paragon/Renegade choices.

  But I gave two examples where paragons don't get both.

 

Beside the fact that they weren't major decisions (which has been the focus of what I've been talking about), Zaeed's mission outcome for Paragons still brought the same positive short-term results.  The objective was getting Zaeed's loyalty, and it still happened... still the best outcome (no one died and Zaeed is still loyal).


 

There are all sorts of situations in ME1 where you get respect for being a Spectre. Noveria being one, where you wouldn't even be allowed on the planet if you weren't one. Support and respect from a STG team on Vermire. Not to mention access to Spectre gear, which was the best in the game.

Well yeah when you're in Council jurisdiction you'll have more clout than when you're working out in a system that doesn't respect that authority and is actually outside of the Council's jurisdiction... nothing wrong with that.

I see you thinking you heard something that isn't there. There is no list of the total casualties from the battle in either interview. There isn't enough information to conclude which was better tacticly.

 
You should reread what I said:  "In the interview with Al-Jilani, the numbers are gone over.  As far as a super-detailed war numbers chart, that content is not available... lol see the problem?'

The other information (whatever and wherever it may be) is apparently not worth discussing, so the actual game sides with the Paragon choice as the least damaging one.

That is exactly what 'expendable' means. If they weren't expendable, then they would have to live for the war to be a victory.

There can be things of great value or significance that can be given up in the right circumstance.  Sacrificing something has no bearing on its worth to a point.... especially when that point is all life in the galaxy (including the council).

It was no more nor less an errand than Samara's loyalty mission. And now this is 'major' choices only? Who gets to define 'major?'

I am sure that the families of the victims of the criminal that got away will feel so much better about their losses because it was Zaheed's fault rather than Shepard's. Even though Zaheed set up the situation it is still Shepard's choice as to how to deal with it.

As for cameos, why would a renegade have more chance to come across old comrades randomly than a paragon? The paragon is coming across them due to their actions. If the encounters you want are 'random' then they would occur equally for both and you wouldn't have the balancing you claim to want.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are changing the defintions now from 'paragons always win' to 'paragons always win on major issues' (even though the Rachni is the only one so far and we can't be completely sure of anything til ME3 is out).

I've always been talking about the major Paragon choices (the ones you absolutely have to make no matter how you play).  Check back if you don't believe me... it's still there.  If you can avoid the scenario, it's not a major choice.  And yes, Samara's loyalty mission was just as much of an errand as Zaeeds.  And again with Zaeed, the goal was to get his loyalty... and even after failing to get what Zaeed wanted, you still gain his loyalty.  That's just another case and point about the short term "moral" right winning out.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 04 juin 2011 - 03:38 .

[Arijharn]

Doesn't the codex say that if you know you're being indoctrinated then it's already too late? As the process has already 'begun'?

I save the Queen and will (hope) for an alliance with them in the future against the Reapers. But that wont flush all the 'bad blood' out there. Providing there is an aftermath to the Reaper-War, it's still going to be a very tumultuous time.

[lovgreno]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Well said. However it's far from always like this, for example the base decision is where the paragons eliminate immediate risk while the renegade hopes for long term gains.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Doesn't the codex say that if you know you're being indoctrinated then it's already too late? As the process has already 'begun'?

I save the Queen and will (hope) for an alliance with them in the future against the Reapers. But that wont flush all the 'bad blood' out there. Providing there is an aftermath to the Reaper-War, it's still going to be a very tumultuous time.

The codex can say that, but there are examples in ME1 in which in which that is only true for people who don't know indoctrination exists.

- The smugglers on Eden reported an overbearing drumming in their heads. They showed no signs of indoctrination.

- The Rachni Queen reported 'a sour note from space', but that the Rachni at the time didn't know what it meant. Presumably they heard the note before it started to significantly affect them.

- The prisoner on Vermire reported repetitious talking in his head that he had been subjected to from some time. Since he didn't just notice it then, it is reasonable to conclude it was noticable before it had real effects.

- Saren knew of indoctrination and was able to delay and resist to a great degree, enough to be able to attempt research on countermeasures. Part of that was indeed Sovereign holding back but even so.

It is true though that you don't know it has been successful until it is too late. 

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Well yeah when you're in Council jurisdiction you'll have more clout than when you're working out in a system that doesn't respect that authority and is actually outside of the Council's jurisdiction... nothing wrong with that.

Except that they immediately banish you to a region outside the Council's jurisdiction. And even within Citadel space it means nothing. The only situation it comes up at all is on the Citadel defending the accused Quarian, and if you aren't reinstated 'former Spectre' works just as well as 'Spectre.'

You should reread what I said:  "In the interview with Al-Jilani, the numbers are gone over.  As far as a super-detailed war numbers chart, that content is not available... lol see the problem?'

The other information (whatever and wherever it may be) is apparently not worth discussing, so the actual game sides with the Paragon choice as the least damaging one.

Those numbers from that interview mean nothing since there is nothing to compare them to. They are completely out of context. It is like concluding that since you counted 1000 cars going by today that there is a more traffic today than yesterday without having any clue how many went by yesterday.


Note I have snipped a lot here. You are qualifying this to the point discussion is meaningless. You define 'major' at your whim in ways convenient to your arguement and likewise overplay the actual results. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you believe your own arguements, but they really aren't holding up well.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Except that they immediately banish you to a region outside the Council's jurisdiction. And even within Citadel space it means nothing. The only situation it comes up at all is on the Citadel defending the accused Quarian, and if you aren't reinstated 'former Spectre' works just as well as 'Spectre.'

You didn't have to go to any high-clearance facilities this time around.  And because the colony abductions that Shepard is fighting to stop (and working with Cerberus to stop) take place in the Terminus systems (outside of Council jurisdiction), it seems like a moot point... what are you really expecting?  And you're always welcome and allowed to go to the Citadel... hardly a banishment. 

Those numbers from that interview mean nothing since there is nothing to compare them to. They are completely out of context. It is like concluding that since you counted 1000 cars going by today that there is a more traffic today than yesterday without having any clue how many went by yesterday.


Note I have snipped a lot here. You are qualifying this to the point discussion is meaningless. You define 'major' at your whim in ways convenient to your arguement and likewise overplay the actual results. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you believe your own arguements, but they really aren't holding up well.

They mean what they mean and you compare them to the Renegade results... that's all that's there.  They are not out of context, they're of the same battle.  Those were the numbers focused on in Mass Effect 2, and between those numbers, Paragons lost less without failing their objective.  If you say that's inconclusive, then the game itself only provided enough info to suggest that Paragons lost less while meeting their objective.  Regardless, it's still Paragon favoritism.

I do not define "major" at my whim, it's common sense that a major decision for a game ends up being a choice that you "have" to make regardless of what style you play as.  They're the choices in the main story.  The main story is unavoidable, and the choices in the main story are consequently your major choices.  That should go without saying... I'm not defining anything, I referred to what was actually there. 

The notion of a "major choice" should make even more sense to you as someone that feels someone sacrificed (regardless of circumstance) is "expendable."

But it doesn't matter.  Zaeed was still a perfect example despite being what I'd term a minor decision.  Me focusing on major decisions wasn't a retreat from the overall point.  If you want to talk about minor decisions, there you go.

And for the record, my arguements thusfar have been 100% accurate and consistent regarding this.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 05 juin 2011 - 02:56 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Here's the first post I made that opened up our discussion... hard to dispute the proof:

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.

It's not a "so now I'm saying just the major decisions"... it's always been that way.

[Reapinger]

You say tomato, I say they both save the Galaxy. Beyond that who cares.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Only those that may want an even better game. See something equally substantial happen regardless of what choice you make. Prevent the game(s) from having a go-to button (spread around which choices yield the best results).

Short term "moral" choices have always yielded the best results thusfar. The game could be better and more profound if they explored deeper themes and complex consequences.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 05 juin 2011 - 03:16 .

[kaiki01]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Only those that may want an even better game. See something equally substantial happen regardless of what choice you make. Prevent the game(s) from having a go-to button (spread around which choices yield the best results).

Short term "moral" choices have always yielded the best results thusfar. The game could be better and more profound if they explored deeper themes and complex consequences.

What themes? So far in ME the themes have been positive ones. Such as, life has value even if it is different, community & co-operation can better all involved. If the designers decided "lets reward players for commiting genocide against the Rachni. We need to makre sure that renegade & paragon are rewarded equally." There does not seem to be a benefit to following your suggestion. Especially if ME already tells the story that Bioware wants to tell.

[Senior Cinco]

You people have been going back and forth about this, through wall after wall of text. Some of it is so far fetched and thrown so far off topic, I think some of you are arguing, just to be arguing.

What the hell does it REALLY matter? Any choices made in ME1 or ME2 ( be it Par or Ren and I've played both ) have yet to, let alone THUS far, changed the gameplay or plot in any way. Aside from the immersion and dialog.(Wow...Gamebreaking moments there...) The games end the same! What makes you think ME3 will be any different? That not to say it won't, but in order for it to have any major effect it will and must have multi endings. THUS FAR, that's not the case.

EDIT: OK....One stands out...Sleeping with Morinth, now that's a gamebreaker.

Modifié par Senior Cinco, 05 juin 2011 - 04:02 .

[Aimi]

Senior Cinco wrote...

What the hell does it REALLY matter? Any choices made in ME1 or ME2 ( be it Par or Ren and I've played both ) have yet to, let alone THUS far, changed the gameplay or plot in any way. Aside from the immersion and dialog.(Wow...Gamebreaking moments there...) The games end the same! What makes you think ME3 will be any different? That not to say it won't, but in order for it to have any major effect it will and must have multi endings. THUS FAR, that's not the case.

Um, well, the devs have repeatedly said that ME3 will have lots of different endings and that choices in previous games will be meaningful.  That's the reason that people are assuming that the game will have lots of different endings and why they're assuming that choices in previous games will be meaningful.  The reason that Mass Effect 2 wasn't like that is apparently that the game would have to import again, and it's already hard enough to keep track of all the previous player decisions.

Now, I mean, you could be saying that they're lying, and that's cool, but not everybody in this thread thinks that they are.

[Senior Cinco]

@dags Did you read the last part of that post or are you just making a haste response to the first line of it?

And that's cool....

[Seboist]

daqs wrote...

Senior Cinco wrote...

What the hell does it REALLY matter? Any choices made in ME1 or ME2 ( be it Par or Ren and I've played both ) have yet to, let alone THUS far, changed the gameplay or plot in any way. Aside from the immersion and dialog.(Wow...Gamebreaking moments there...) The games end the same! What makes you think ME3 will be any different? That not to say it won't, but in order for it to have any major effect it will and must have multi endings. THUS FAR, that's not the case.

Um, well, the devs have repeatedly said that ME3 will have lots of different endings and that choices in previous games will be meaningful.  That's the reason that people are assuming that the game will have lots of different endings and why they're assuming that choices in previous games will be meaningful.  The reason that Mass Effect 2 wasn't like that is apparently that the game would have to import again, and it's already hard enough to keep track of all the previous player decisions.

Now, I mean, you could be saying that they're lying, and that's cool, but not everybody in this thread thinks that they are.

Personally I think all these issues of player choice and meaningful outcomes are a classic case of biting off more than one could chew. Bioware for some reason isn't able to create real outcomes and balance them out. There's really no excuse for things like the human led council not showing up besides cutting corners.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kaiki01 wrote...

What themes? So far in ME the themes have been positive ones. Such as, life has value even if it is different, community & co-operation can better all involved. If the designers decided "lets reward players for commiting genocide against the Rachni. We need to makre sure that renegade & paragon are rewarded equally." There does not seem to be a benefit to following your suggestion. Especially if ME already tells the story that Bioware wants to tell.

Specifically the theme that there are no tough decisions, just go with the short-term moral "right" despite all odds and you will recieve the best outcome and still accomplish your goal.  This fact counters what they wanted to make Mass Effect as a series be.  "Many difficult choices lie ahead... none of them easy."  When the blue button always works the best, that's not true.

Also, reward is not the same as showing whitewash favoritism.  It means that sometimes, making a choice outside of what would be done on a sunny day (due to that circumstance) could actually work out better once in a while.  And even if it's not, to have "content" there regardless equal to what Paragon choices recieve.

ex)  Killed the Rachni?  Let someone from the labs run into you instead... 

       Got a New Council?  See them, let them talk with you.  It's like you never met the new Council at all and were out chasing Geth the entire time before Mass Effect 2.

Senior Cinco wrote...

You people have been going back and forth about this, through wall after wall of text. Some of it is so far fetched and thrown so far off topic, I think some of you are arguing, just to be arguing.

What the hell does it REALLY matter? Any choices made in ME1 or ME2 ( be it Par or Ren and I've played both ) have yet to, let alone THUS far, changed the gameplay or plot in any way. Aside from the immersion and dialog.(Wow...Gamebreaking moments there...) The games end the same! What makes you think ME3 will be any different? That not to say it won't, but in order for it to have any major effect it will and must have multi endings. THUS FAR, that's not the case.

EDIT: OK....One stands out...Sleeping with Morinth, now that's a gamebreaker.

It only really matters if you actually role-play and notice that trend...  if you want the most content out of your game, you shouldn't "have" to go blue to get it.  And going blue shouldn't be the "go-to" button for the best solution... that removes any notion of a hard choice.

The notion of the major paragon choices being based on the short-term moral "right" and also a choice that not only hasn't backfired, but provides the same victory as Renegades but at the smallest cost is 100% fact.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 05 juin 2011 - 04:51 .

[Aimi]

Senior Cinco wrote...

@dags Did you read the last part of that post or are you just making a haste response to the first line of it?

And that's cool....

I read it.  Doesn't change anything.  Saying that BioWare didn't do X in a previous game doesn't mean they won't do it in this one, especially when the reasons for doing it were different.  It's not convincing - one might as well say that, since there was only one Reaper in ME1, and one Reaper in ME2, that there will only be one Reaper in ME3, not a giant fleet.  There's no reason to think that they won't do it in this game other than "I don't trust the word of people who work for BioWare" - certainly a viable opinion, but not one that you can inflict on everybody else in the thread.  That's why they're arguing.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The fact that there will be different endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that the trend of short-term moral choices being the most content-filled, lowest-costing victory option won't continue.

[Aimi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The fact that there will be different endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that the trend of short-term moral choices being the most content-filled, lowest-costing victory option won't continue.

Maybe you're right, but that's certainly not what Senior Cinco was saying.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

daqs wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The fact that there will be different endings in Mass Effect 3 doesn't mean that the trend of short-term moral choices being the most content-filled, lowest-costing victory option won't continue.

Maybe you're right, but that's certainly not what Senior Cinco was saying.

True, true.  And he's right in that so far gameplay hasn't really been affected...
 
...unless you count conversations with people reflecting your choice from the previous game(s) as part of gameplay....

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 05 juin 2011 - 05:09 .

[Senior Cinco]

daqs wrote...

I read it.

Doesn't sound like it. 

"I don't trust the word of the people who work for BioWare" 

Never said that...You did. That's called Spinning, and it's not very becoming. You are free to opine, but don't put words in my mouth.