904 réponses à ce sujet

[tjzsf]

"Ah yes Reapers" isn't nearly equivalent to having none of the supposed hard choices have real benefits.
Moiaussi, the whole point of renegades complaining is that in while paragons are supposed to be sacrificing long-term overall gain for short-term moral gain and renegades are vice versa, the actual result is that paragons get the long-term gain as well. All the big choices (rachni, DA, geth, collector base), none of the renegade methods (by which I mean non-charm/intimidate choices, or the bottom right choices) ever give you as good an outcome as the top right, while the top right choices never blow up in your face.

Save the rachni? No negative repercussions. Killed them? Short one ally race against the Reapers
Sacrifice the Destiny Ascension? Within context, actually realistically the worst choice, as it's far better to mass your forces against a segment of the enemy's force than it is to hold the reserve until your main force and their main force have wiped each other. You also don't get the end result of seeing a human-led council that the ending suggested. Saving them is the only sane choice, in-game or meta.
Rewrite geth? Same thing as the rachni example. Except now Paragons get the benefit of appearing edgier for brainwashing a faction into submission, while Renegades only lose out on another potential ally. Far better to reverse the two options, where Paragons would be horrified at the prospect of brainwashing sentient beings ("is submission not preferable to extinction?") while Renegades would delight in the the irony of siccing former heretics against the Reapers.
Tali's trial - commit perjury? Tali is loyal. Tell the truth and respect quarian law? Tali is disloyal.
Collector base - keep the base? everyone, including the party members who were in favor of it when the idea is first raised, or wouldn't be so stupid as to think that the knowledge was acquired in "too horrific of a method" to invalidate its use like Mordin disapproves. Blow it up? Everyone loves you.

"Ah yea, Reapers" pales in comparison.

tldr: the suposed negative consequences to being Paragon is orders of magnitude lower than those of being Renegade.

Modifié par tjzsf, 06 juin 2011 - 06:05 .

[Ultai]

tjzsf wrote...

"Ah yes Reapers" isn't nearly equivalent to having none of the supposed hard choices have real benefits.
Moiaussi, the whole point of renegades complaining is that in while paragons are supposed to be sacrificing long-term overall gain for short-term moral gain and renegades are vice versa, the actual result is that paragons get the long-term gain as well. All the big choices (rachni, DA, geth, collector base), none of the renegade methods (by which I mean non-charm/intimidate choices, or the bottom right choices) ever give you as good an outcome as the top right, while the top right choices never blow up in your face.

Save the rachni? No negative repercussions. Killed them? Short one ally race against the Reapers
Sacrifice the Destiny Ascension? Within context, actually realistically the worst choice, as it's far better to mass your forces against a segment of the enemy's force than it is to hold the reserve until your main force and their main force have wiped each other. You also don't get the end result of seeing a human-led council that the ending suggested. Saving them is the only sane choice, in-game or meta.
Rewrite geth? Same thing as the rachni example. Except now Paragons get the benefit of appearing edgier for brainwashing a faction into submission, while Renegades only lose out on another potential ally. Far better to reverse the two options, where Paragons would be horrified at the prospect of brainwashing sentient beings ("is submission not preferable to extinction?") while Renegades would delight in the the irony of siccing former heretics against the Reapers.
Tali's trial - commit perjury? Tali is loyal. Tell the truth and respect quarian law? Tali is disloyal.
Collector base - keep the base? everyone, including the party members who were in favor of it when the idea is first raised, or wouldn't be so stupid as to think that the knowledge was acquired in "too horrific of a method" to invalidate its use like Mordin disapproves. Blow it up? Everyone loves you.

"Ah yea, Reapers" pales in comparison.

tldr: the suposed negative consequences to being Paragon is orders of magnitude lower than those of being Renegade.

Since I play my Shep as gray as possible, I have to agree with this.  However if you're worried about Tali's temper tantrum and non loyalty getting her killed, she can still survive the SM disloyal if you got a good enough hold the line score.  I hand over the evidence personally, and was glad she survived.

[Dean_the_Young]

Confused-Shepard wrote...

The paragon/rengeade morality business is just stupid and we should be free to make whatever choices we want. Everything shouldn't be as black & white as it is now. There is NO benefit to playing renegade when in fact stuff like the Collector base should give them an edge.

It's funny. Renegades kill like with the Rachni Queen & Wrex whereas Paragon's save them.
The one time they decide to try the other method and save something, Bioware screws them over.

You are free to make whatever choice you want.

The only 'choice' in the game where a Persuasion check of any sort is required for an ideal outcome are the loyalty conflicts... and that's only in so much as the loyalty flag, as opposed to survival, is important to ME3. Otherwise, it's still pretty easy to make any non-loyal team member survive.

In all other cases, a lack of a high Paragon/Renegade score never stops you from making any of the big (and little) end-mission choices.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

There is no 'Humanity' government. There is the Alliance and there are independant human or predominantly human worlds. It was the Alliance petitioning to join the Council. You really are just making this up as you go along.

I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post. I suspect you are trolling, but whether you are or not, I am not bothering to debate this further with you.

No race's "government" or a faction's "government" is a part of the council either.  The systems Alliance has an embassy at the Presidium but the Alliance Capital is on Arcturus Station.  They also have a Parliament there... I'll let you think about what that means.  And the Alliance petitioned for Humanity to join the Council... that does not equate to the Alliance joining the Council.  As you already know, there's the Alliance and then there are independant human or predominantly human worlds... but the Alliance tries to stand up for them too... obviously while the Council deals with all Citadel races for as far as their jurisdiction stretches.

Once more you say I'm not talking about what's in the actual game when I am.  Once more you accuse me of trolling when it turns out that it's you who's unaware of what he's talking about.  This is what's in the actual game... only when you can wrap your head around that can we continue.  If you can't wrap your head around the facts presented in the game, then definitely stop.. it would save us all time.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

"Ah yes Reapers" isn't nearly equivalent to having none of the supposed hard choices have real benefits.
Moiaussi, the whole point of renegades complaining is that in while paragons are supposed to be sacrificing long-term overall gain for short-term moral gain and renegades are vice versa, the actual result is that paragons get the long-term gain as well. All the big choices (rachni, DA, geth, collector base), none of the renegade methods (by which I mean non-charm/intimidate choices, or the bottom right choices) ever give you as good an outcome as the top right, while the top right choices never blow up in your face.

Save the rachni? No negative repercussions. Killed them? Short one ally race against the Reapers
Sacrifice the Destiny Ascension? Within context, actually realistically the worst choice, as it's far better to mass your forces against a segment of the enemy's force than it is to hold the reserve until your main force and their main force have wiped each other. You also don't get the end result of seeing a human-led council that the ending suggested. Saving them is the only sane choice, in-game or meta.
Rewrite geth? Same thing as the rachni example. Except now Paragons get the benefit of appearing edgier for brainwashing a faction into submission, while Renegades only lose out on another potential ally. Far better to reverse the two options, where Paragons would be horrified at the prospect of brainwashing sentient beings ("is submission not preferable to extinction?") while Renegades would delight in the the irony of siccing former heretics against the Reapers.
Tali's trial - commit perjury? Tali is loyal. Tell the truth and respect quarian law? Tali is disloyal.
Collector base - keep the base? everyone, including the party members who were in favor of it when the idea is first raised, or wouldn't be so stupid as to think that the knowledge was acquired in "too horrific of a method" to invalidate its use like Mordin disapproves. Blow it up? Everyone loves you.

"Ah yea, Reapers" pales in comparison.

tldr: the suposed negative consequences to being Paragon is orders of magnitude lower than those of being Renegade.

What long term benefits are there from decisions relating to the Geth? Or the DA? Nothing has been announced on any of those. Not seeing a human led council is hardly a 'major result.'

Legion warns that he doesn't know for certain how rewriting the heretics will turn out, so if that does end badly we have been warned.

Tali's trial, if you reveal the evidence then the Quarians might contilnue the research and you might get the backing Quarians leading a re-enslaved Geth army in ME3. Make up your mind. Do renegades believe in their mantra that the mission comes first or is Tali's loyalty more important than actually stopping the Reapers?

Even the base isn't a given. For all we know that just means renegades will just get the extra content they have been complaining about not getting.

That leaves the Rachni, which comes down to renegades complaining that one paragon choice seems to have a definate advantage,which means this isn't really so much about renegades wanting equality as renegades wanting no paragon decisions to turn out better. Even then we don't know for certain how it will turn out.

It is fair game to express concern, but not so much to misrepresent the existing situation.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 06 juin 2011 - 02:42 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

No race's "government" or a faction's "government" is a part of the council either.  The systems Alliance has an embassy at the Presidium but the Alliance Capital is on Arcturus Station.  They also have a Parliament there... I'll let you think about what that means.  And the Alliance petitioned for Humanity to join the Council... that does not equate to the Alliance joining the Council.  As you already know, there's the Alliance and then there are independant human or predominantly human worlds... but the Alliance tries to stand up for them too... obviously while the Council deals with all Citadel races for as far as their jurisdiction stretches.

Once more you say I'm not talking about what's in the actual game when I am.  Once more you accuse me of trolling when it turns out that it's you who's unaware of what he's talking about.  This is what's in the actual game... only when you can wrap your head around that can we continue.  If you can't wrap your head around the facts presented in the game, then definitely stop.. it would save us all time.

If the Councilor represents 'humanity' instead of the 'Alliance' then are you saying that he independant human colonies in the verge and terminus regions are Council colonies? Even though they consider themselves independant? And if the respective empires are not part of the Council, how does the Council enforce any authority over them? Why wouldn't they insist on representation or at least their own embassies? Why are there no Asari, Salarian or Turian embassies?

And are Spectres 'above conventional law subject only to the Council' or not? You seem to be saying that they are above Council law but subject to Asari, Turian, Salarian AND Alliance law, despite their being absolutely no evidence backing that up.

You are pulling all this out of the blue and pretending it is truth.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 06 juin 2011 - 02:54 .

[Ice Cold J]

As a paragon player (mostly), I'm starting to feel for renegades.

It sounds like EVERY Renegade decision (including saving the Collector Base), is gonna make ME3 all the more challenging for them. No Rachni, Council/galaxy distrust you, Cerebus (now enemy) is more powerful.

Renegades are gettin' screwed, IMO.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

If the Councilor represents 'humanity' instead of the 'Alliance' then are you saying that he independant human colonies in the verge and terminus regions are Council colonies? Even though they consider themselves independant?

 
Yes.  The Human Councilor represents Humanity AND the Alliance... actually.... Anderson says exactly that (once more, in the actual game...).  They represent the race of humankind when shaping interstellar policy and protection... including those toward systems currently outside Council jurisdiction (the most recent example being Shepard's permission as a Spectre to investigate the missing colonies in the Terminus systems).

EDIT/Addition:  The Alliance, on the other hand, conducted their own investigation and protective measures by installing those stationary guns on places like Horizon.

And if the respective empires are not part of the Council, how does the Council enforce any authority over them?

Cooperation and a Treaty.

Why wouldn't they insist on representation or at least their own embassies? Why are there no Asari, Salarian or Turian embassies?

I think you can educate yourself on this one:  http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Embassies

And are Spectres 'above conventional law subject only to the Council' or not? You seem to be saying that they are above Council law but subject to Asari, Turian, Salarian AND Alliance law, despite their being absolutely no evidence backing that up.

You are pulling all this out of the blue and pretending it is truth.

The Council gives them the right to do whatever it takes if it's necessary.  Go overboard and they'll complain... go rogue and they'll come after you.  Again, in the actual game...  At some point you're going to have to drop that arguement because the evidence has been constantly vindictive.  Hard to "pretend" when it's actually there.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 juin 2011 - 10:19 .

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...
What long term benefits are there from decisions relating to the Geth? Or the DA? Nothing has been announced on any of those. Not seeing a human led council is hardly a 'major result.'

Legion warns that he doesn't know for certain how rewriting the heretics will turn out, so if that does end badly we have been warned.

Tali's trial, if you reveal the evidence then the Quarians might contilnue the research and you might get the backing Quarians leading a re-enslaved Geth army in ME3. Make up your mind. Do renegades believe in their mantra that the mission comes first or is Tali's loyalty more important than actually stopping the Reapers?

Even the base isn't a given. For all we know that just means renegades will just get the extra content they have been complaining about not getting.

That leaves the Rachni, which comes down to renegades complaining that one paragon choice seems to have a definate advantage,which means this isn't really so much about renegades wanting equality as renegades wanting no paragon decisions to turn out better. Even then we don't know for certain how it will turn out.

It is fair game to express concern, but not so much to misrepresent the existing situation.

Existiing situation not being misrepresented. Your rebuttals consist entirely of "you don't know that, it might be different", which while technicially true, is unlikely to be so. Overall, you bring up too many hypotheticals and pay not enough attention to the most likely/logical results of the player's actions.

Long-term for rewriting geth - the exact same as rachni. I shouldn't have to reexplain this. You have a subset of a race of beings who can help you in the future. It makes absolutely no sense to kill them off. If you're a paragon, it'd be because you think they have a right to live. If you're a renegade, it's because you've read enough Sun Tzu to know that it's always better to capture enemy equipment than it is to destroy it.

DA - the tradeoff as presented in-game is between either sacrificing the council to have a marginally better chance at taking down Soverign (rendered moot by both methods being able to kill Sovvy，but saving the DA being the more sound choice both tactically and strategically), or between preserving the galactic status quo or being able to catapult humans to the top (rendered moot by the latter being unobtainable). Thus, only paragon rewards, no renegade

It would be best to stop using labels like "major result" simply because that word means different things to different people. I get the vibe that for you it means something that affects how the gameplay segments of the story - it is true that none of these things affect where and when you start shooting stuff. In my (and the renegade complainers') case, it means that all the major decisions (the ones that get you like 30something morality points) and in a lot of the minor ones, the paragon choice is almost always better than the renegade choice.

Legion leads you to believe that rewriting has a reasonable chance of success, enough to be an equal alternative to destroying the heretics. In the absence of other information, the PC must necessarily accept this as true, so the only logical conclusion is that rewriting -> more assets, destroying -> less assets.

WRT Tali's trial, Renegades believe mission comes first - that means taking care of their crew's needs so that everyone is focused 100% towards stopping the Reapers, which means in game terms getting everyone's loyalty. Tali's loyalty is a subset of mission first, simple as that. There is no inconsistency here, the only problem is that it's far more paragon to submit the evidence than it is to commit perjury, yet the game presents these choices in reverse because apparently renegade half the time is just another word for "jerkface." As for the scenario you mentioned, here's an alternate one - the quarians try to reenslave the geth and it blows up in their face, and now you have another war on your hands.

The Cerberus base? Perhaps equal content. But the point with the base hasn't ever been about content, but about how no one in your crew agrees with the decision to keep it, even the ones who thought it was a good idea when the possibility was brought up (like Mordin) or the ones who should be in favor of keeping it (like Miranda or Jacob), as well as how the established fact that you will be fighting cerberus in ME3 means that in-verse this decision blows up in the renegades' face because they ended up strengthening an enemy.

On top of all this (not "this leaves only"), the rachni is one of many major decisions where top right -> best outcome, bottom right -> punishment for being a jerkface.

tldr: paragons are never punished for trusting everyone they meet (with the sole exception of Elnora) and renegades are never rewarded for making the morally ambiguous tough choices (like re-genociding the rapidly multiplying bug swarm or sacrificing 10000 civilians to take out space-cthulhu)

[McAllyster]

The renegade choice of the collector base question should be a negative impact I hope. The cerberus is sided with the reapers now - so the CB is under reaper influence now. Punishing renegades.

[Arijharn]

tjzsf is rather eloquent imo. It's disgusting and I'm jealous. I obviously agree too. I think the worst (or best?) example of how much of a joke the morality system has gotten is the Paragon charm decision with Zaeed's loyalty.

Zaeed was deadset on leaving those workers to die so he can get Vido, so even if you completely disagree with him (even punch him or whatever), providing you pass this check you're golden. I think that is the proverbial 'slap in the face' to the renegades, who presumably weighed the pros'n'cons of the worker situation and decided that the cost was worth it. Telling Zaeed essentially to '--ck off' and that you'll do this the 'right way' and then sort of give Zaeed an epiphany afterwards is far worse in terms of 'character reversal' than even the about-turns re the Collector Base that your crew-members give you.
Then again, I don't think that's a failing with the morality system itself though; but how it was used. I don't think Shephard's powers of Indoctrination should be that intense imo.

[Ausstig]

It's the double standard that gets to me. When I saved the CB I was like, ok cool this will balance out the rachni and other paragon favoring decisions from ME1.

But NOOOO, cerberus and TIM betray you.

So let me get this straight, paragons can take all the risks and trust anyone they want from letting crazy bugs go to risking the life of every person in the galaxy to save 30'000 people, and have it all work out fine and dandy.

But if renegades try it, it blows up in their face. Wow Biowear way to make both experiences feel rewarding....

[Mr. Gogeta34]

And even if you accept the negative consequences of Renegade choices, you still get less game content for making these decisions than if you'd have made a Paragon decision.

That is total Paragon favoritism.  If their goal was to reward players for the choices they make, they almost totally failed.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
 
Yes.  The Human Councilor represents Humanity AND the Alliance... actually.... Anderson says exactly that (once more, in the actual game...).  They represent the race of humankind when shaping interstellar policy and protection... including those toward systems currently outside Council jurisdiction (the most recent example being Shepard's permission as a Spectre to investigate the missing colonies in the Terminus systems).

EDIT/Addition:  The Alliance, on the other hand, conducted their own investigation and protective measures by installing those stationary guns on places like Horizon.

Race and government names are used interchangably often, simply because each empire is essentially racially pure just due to history. This doesn't mean that the Council claims authrority or responsibility for independant worlds regardless of racial mix or that the Alliance represents independant human worlds.

Cooperation and a Treaty.

The Treaty of Farixen only covers dreadnaught production and the Asari, Salarian and Turian governments are also signatories. What governs the actual separation of powers? And how can Spectres be 'answerable only to the council' if they are really answerable to everyone else too?

I think you can educate yourself on this one:  http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Embassies

That entry does not say what you think it says. The first to arrive at the Citadel and form the Council were the Asari and Salarians, but according to that entry, the first to have an embassy were the Volus. If embassies represent races and not race based governments, why wouldn't the Asari and Salarians have had the first embassies? And if the "Human Councellor" represents humanity instead of the Alliance, why is it that the Council aren't the ones dealing with the independant human colonies? Why is the Alliance doing so? How can 'humanity' or any other given race sign a treaty despite being divided into a main 'racial government' and numerous independant worlds?

You are essentially saying that somehow someone has signed a treaty binding all independant worlds without their knowledge or consent.

The Council gives them the right to do whatever it takes if it's necessary.  Go overboard and they'll complain... go rogue and they'll come after you.  Again, in the actual game...  At some point you're going to have to drop that arguement because the evidence has been constantly vindictive.  Hard to "pretend" when it's actually there.

I didn't say that the Spectres are above all law. I said they are answerable only to the Council. That is NOT the same. I was asking how the Alliance could have authority over a Spectre who is in good standing.

You have been trying to make the case that Spectre status matters or will matter. I pointed out that it will be stripped again pending the outcome of the trial (since it is an Alliance trial not a Coucnil trial) and you responded by trying to say that Alliance authority somehow supercedes that of the Council. and started misrepresenting the in-game use of race in place of empire names.

Enough of the word games.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

Existiing situation not being misrepresented. Your rebuttals consist entirely of "you don't know that, it might be different", which while technicially true, is unlikely to be so. Overall, you bring up too many hypotheticals and pay not enough attention to the most likely/logical results of the player's actions.

Unlikely based on what? You were wrong about the Racnhi. Given that, why do you insist you are right in predicting all other outcomes?

Long-term for rewriting geth - the exact same as rachni. I shouldn't have to reexplain this. You have a subset of a race of beings who can help you in the future. It makes absolutely no sense to kill them off. If you're a paragon, it'd be because you think they have a right to live. If you're a renegade, it's because you've read enough Sun Tzu to know that it's always better to capture enemy equipment than it is to destroy it.

Then by that logic, saving the base has to be the best decision in the end. It is only better to capture than to destroy if you can hold and use what you capture. That is uncertain in both situations.

DA - the tradeoff as presented in-game is between either sacrificing the council to have a marginally better chance at taking down Soverign (rendered moot by both methods being able to kill Sovvy，but saving the DA being the more sound choice both tactically and strategically), or between preserving the galactic status quo or being able to catapult humans to the top (rendered moot by the latter being unobtainable). Thus, only paragon rewards, no renegade

There is insufficient data to determine which had the better result. There are no actual comparative figures in that we don't know the actual casualty figures nor the full stategic effects. We only know some of the casualty figures, but not enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

There is some suggestion that there might be a stategic advantage (since the Asari hand their naval responsibilities off to the Turians if the DA was destroyed), but we don't know for certain if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Also for any Pro-Cerberus/human supremist players, it might end up best for humanity. If the other races end up hit harder but we win anyway, it could improve the Alliance's position at the expense of everyone else. Just because that doesn't happen instantly doesn't mean it won't play out that way.

There is also the possiblilty that the original Council were at least partially indoctrinated, which means that their being out of the way could easily end up a benefit.

It would be best to stop using labels like "major result" simply because that word means different things to different people. I get the vibe that for you it means something that affects how the gameplay segments of the story - it is true that none of these things affect where and when you start shooting stuff. In my (and the renegade complainers') case, it means that all the major decisions (the ones that get you like 30something morality points) and in a lot of the minor ones, the paragon choice is almost always better than the renegade choice.

Then we shouldn't discuss this at all, since they have different results and those results are going to mean different things to different people.

Legion leads you to believe that rewriting has a reasonable chance of success, enough to be an equal alternative to destroying the heretics. In the absence of other information, the PC must necessarily accept this as true, so the only logical conclusion is that rewriting -> more assets, destroying -> less assets.

"A reasonable chance of success" does not equal "sure thing." Again, you are assuming that we will get those 'more assets' in the end and they won't end up on the wrong side of the war. Worst case would be that we would lose both the heretics and some or all of the mainstream Geth.

WRT Tali's trial, Renegades believe mission comes first - that means taking care of their crew's needs so that everyone is focused 100% towards stopping the Reapers, which means in game terms getting everyone's loyalty. Tali's loyalty is a subset of mission first, simple as that. There is no inconsistency here, the only problem is that it's far more paragon to submit the evidence than it is to commit perjury, yet the game presents these choices in reverse because apparently renegade half the time is just another word for "jerkface." As for the scenario you mentioned, here's an alternate one - the quarians try to reenslave the geth and it blows up in their face, and now you have another war on your hands.

And yet the mission is winnable without her loyalty. Personally I think destroying or concieling evidence is renegade anyway. Also, isn't there a renegade 'rile the crowd' option that also doesn't involve handing over the evidence? I might be misremembering but I seem to recall one.

The Cerberus base? Perhaps equal content. But the point with the base hasn't ever been about content, but about how no one in your crew agrees with the decision to keep it, even the ones who thought it was a good idea when the possibility was brought up (like Mordin) or the ones who should be in favor of keeping it (like Miranda or Jacob), as well as how the established fact that you will be fighting cerberus in ME3 means that in-verse this decision blows up in the renegades' face because they ended up strengthening an enemy.

Many of the crew don't say that until after the decision though. Also  the Council seemed to believe in Reapers at the end of ME1. As such I don't take such comments as meaning anything. And again, even if the base ends up in the hands of the enemy, it may just mean you get to retake it in ME3. Presumably that would count as more content...

On top of all this (not "this leaves only"), the rachni is one of many major decisions where top right -> best outcome, bottom right -> punishment for being a jerkface.

tldr: paragons are never punished for trusting everyone they meet (with the sole exception of Elnora) and renegades are never rewarded for making the morally ambiguous tough choices (like re-genociding the rapidly multiplying bug swarm or sacrificing 10000 civilians to take out space-cthulhu)

Depends on what happens with the Feros survivors too. Paragons deserve it if that comes back to bite them (although that would mean renegades would whine about content). We had a chance to deal with them in ME1 and again in ME2. The 'basic tests' didn't reveal any answers but the Colonists still have obvious after effects. The more invasive tests might have been the right answer, and that is a renegade decision. Just because the lab rep was prejudiced against humans doesn't mean the tests were a bad idea.

There are a lot of other decisions that could go pro renegade, and Bioware tends to like twists (even when the seem questionable, such as having us forced to work with Cerberus in ME2 and then Cerberus is guaranteed our enemy in ME3).

Modifié par Moiaussi, 07 juin 2011 - 06:54 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

--double post--

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 07 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Race and government names are used interchangably often, simply because each empire is essentially racially pure just due to history. This doesn't mean that the Council claims authrority or responsibility for independant worlds regardless of racial mix or that the Alliance represents independant human worlds.

The Human Councilor represents the race of humankind when shaping interstellar policy and protection.  As simple as that.  Being an independent world doesn't preclude that.

The Treaty of Farixen only covers dreadnaught production and the Asari, Salarian and Turian governments are also signatories. What governs the actual separation of powers? And how can Spectres be 'answerable only to the council' if they are really answerable to everyone else too?

That treaty is also for those acknowledged to be one of the Citadel races.  Lets make this even simpler, in Mass Effect 2, Anderson assures Shepard that he'll keep both the Alliance and the Council off Shepard's back.  They are not the same.   

That entry does not say what you think it says. The first to arrive at the Citadel and form the Council were the Asari and Salarians, but according to that entry, the first to have an embassy were the Volus. If embassies represent races and not race based governments, why wouldn't the Asari and Salarians have had the first embassies? And if the "Human Councellor" represents humanity instead of the Alliance, why is it that the Council aren't the ones dealing with the independant human colonies? Why is the Alliance doing so? How can 'humanity' or any other given race sign a treaty despite being divided into a main 'racial government' and numerous independant worlds?

You are essentially saying that somehow someone has signed a treaty binding all independant worlds without their knowledge or consent.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the Council assumes responsibility for ensuring galactic peace... which includes their neighboring territories and how to deal with them.  And again, the "Human Councellor" represents both Humanity AND the Alliance (ie, Humanity wherever they are). 

I didn't say that the Spectres are above all law. I said they are answerable only to the Council. That is NOT the same. I was asking how the Alliance could have authority over a Spectre who is in good standing.

You have been trying to make the case that Spectre status matters or will matter. I pointed out that it will be stripped again pending the outcome of the trial (since it is an Alliance trial not a Coucnil trial) and you responded by trying to say that Alliance authority somehow supercedes that of the Council. and started misrepresenting the in-game use of race in place of empire names.

Enough of the word games.

I'm sorry to say this but you've missed the entire point of the Council giving you your Spectre status back.  Maybe what the Council themselves say will help it make more sense to you:   

"Not a public acknowledgement considering your ties [with Cerberus] but something to show peripheral support."

"We cannot be involved in an investigation regarding the missing colonies in the Terminus systems.  But Spectre reinstatement shows our support of you personally."

Those quotes are from the actual game (as usual).  If you say I'm making that up again... I'm telling you right now that I'm going to laugh... then point you directly to where it is in the actual game.

And I never, ever said the Alliance authority superceded the Council's authority.  But Alliance business and missions compared to Council business and missions ARE two different things.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 07 juin 2011 - 07:00 .

[Seboist]

Ausstig wrote...

It's the double standard that gets to me. When I saved the CB I was like, ok cool this will balance out the rachni and other paragon favoring decisions from ME1.

But NOOOO, cerberus and TIM betray you.

So let me get this straight, paragons can take all the risks and trust anyone they want from letting crazy bugs go to risking the life of every person in the galaxy to save 30'000 people, and have it all work out fine and dandy.

But if renegades try it, it blows up in their face. Wow Biowear way to make both experiences feel rewarding....

The worst part of saving the Collector base is that EVERY squadmate who was in favor of keeping it has a complete reversal and scolds Shepard for being an idiot when back on the Normandy. Even Morinth is questioning my Shepard's judgment.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Short-term moral right has always won out... regardless of the odds... that's just how it is.

Blue button = most lives saved, most content given, and most highly praised button while still accomplishing the missions like Renegades do.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Human Councilor represents the race of humankind when shaping interstellar policy and protection.  As simple as that.  Being an independent world doesn't preclude that.

That treaty is also for those acknowledged to be one of the Citadel races.  Lets make this even simpler, in Mass Effect 2, Anderson assures Shepard that he'll keep both the Alliance and the Council off Shepard's back.  They are not the same.   

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the Council assumes responsibility for ensuring galactic peace... which includes their neighboring territories and how to deal with them.  And again, the "Human Councellor" represents both Humanity AND the Alliance (ie, Humanity wherever they are). 

 
Does Noveria know it is part of the Council territory after all? How about Horizon, which is skeptical and mistrusting of outsiders? Not sure about the Anderson quote, since I don't know the context. Note I am not saying it didn't happen. I am just suspecting you are twisting it into something it isn't.  If it is in the context of Shepard not having Spectre status then obviously the Alliance and Council have separate law enforcement. However Spectre status supercedes the authority of all lower levels of government, or it means nothing. Spectres wouldn't have only very limited authority and probably wouldn't even be able to do much at all.

I'm sorry to say this but you've missed the entire point of the Council giving you your Spectre status back.  Maybe what the Council themselves say will help it make more sense to you:   

"Not a public acknowledgement considering your ties [with Cerberus] but something to show peripheral support."

"We cannot be involved in an investigation regarding the missing colonies in the Terminus systems.  But Spectre reinstatement shows our support of you personally."

Those quotes are from the actual game (as usual).  If you say I'm making that up again... I'm telling you right now that I'm going to laugh... then point you directly to where it is in the actual game.

I am not disputing that they said that. I am saying that it is nothing more than lip service, essentially 'if we tell him he has spectre status back, maybe he'll be more willing to go away.' With the status they can tell him to go to the Terminus systems and rant there. WIthout it, he is no longer an employee of the Council so they have to allow him freedom of speech.

And I never, ever said the Alliance authority superceded the Council's authority.  But Alliance business and missions compared to Council business and missions ARE two different things.

There is no such thing as an off duty spectre and Shepard wasn't even in Alliance space. By definition, everything A Spectre does is 'council business.'

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
 
Does Noveria know it is part of the Council territory after all? How about Horizon, which is skeptical and mistrusting of outsiders? Not sure about the Anderson quote, since I don't know the context. Note I am not saying it didn't happen. I am just suspecting you are twisting it into something it isn't.  If it is in the context of Shepard not having Spectre status then obviously the Alliance and Council have separate law enforcement. However Spectre status supercedes the authority of all lower levels of government, or it means nothing. Spectres wouldn't have only very limited authority and probably wouldn't even be able to do much at all.

If you suspect everything I bring up is "twisting it somehow to serve my purposes" then by all means, look it up yourself and tell me what they say and the context that they say it in.  We can cut through the song and dance of this if you want.  Show me where in mandatory choices that Paragon decisions don't currently result in less lives lost/more content/more praise than Renegades.

I am not disputing that they said that. I am saying that it is nothing more than lip service, essentially 'if we tell him he has spectre status back, maybe he'll be more willing to go away.' With the status they can tell him to go to the Terminus systems and rant there. WIthout it, he is no longer an employee of the Council so they have to allow him freedom of speech.

What exactly did you expect the Council to do?  Launch a full, public investigation and start an interstellar war?  They're allowing you to investigate as a Spectre (which they could've prevented you from having... given your ties) and allowing you to commit Treason at the time that they did it.  You get to become a Spectre again AFTER confirming that you're working with Cerberus ("an avowed enemy of the Council, a capital offense.")

You left there with the Coucil's blessing... no two-ways about it.

There is no such thing as an off duty spectre and Shepard wasn't even in Alliance space. By definition, everything A Spectre does is 'council business.'

Shepard was on an Alliance base... a secret Alliance base I think it was.. that base is what flew into the Relay and massacred a bunch of Batarians that hate humans.  Prior to this, Shepard raided a Batarian base (in Batarian space) and freed an Alliance deep-cover agent.  The Council is unaware of Shepard's involvement in any of this as of the end of ME2 and Arrival (that's been documented).  Admiral Hackett asked Shepard to go to a hearing on Earth (because the Batarians hate humans already and they'll be out for blood) and Shepard agrees.

If the Council knew of this, it's likely that it would become Council business... however since apparently the VS is also a Spectre (according to the wiki), they too will find out what's going on at the Earth hearing without personally involving themselves.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juin 2011 - 12:47 .

[Golden Owl]

Ice Cold J wrote...

As a paragon player (mostly), I'm starting to feel for renegades.

It sounds like EVERY Renegade decision (including saving the Collector Base), is gonna make ME3 all the more challenging for them. No Rachni, Council/galaxy distrust you, Cerebus (now enemy) is more powerful.

Renegades are gettin' screwed, IMO.

Though by the same token, a number of renegade trigger options in ME2, make their battles easier.

And too many conclusions are still being made about a game none of us has played yet, we really don't know how it's all going to pan out...I do not see BW making the game less enjoyable or fulfilling for renegades.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Those have no effect on outcome, lives lost, or praise given compared to Paragon choices. You may have less content, which is consistent with the arguement.

That still doesn't change the fact that Paragons have the best outcomes when lives lost, content, and praise are concerned. It hurts the game knowing that choosing the Paragon option will result in that... really a shame... because now, the notion of having a tough choice is gone.

It also kinda defeats the point of comparing choices and outcomes.  Paragons will be able to smile the most about their choices while everyone else talks more about what wasn't there or what they lost... that's basically what the choices in the games have boiled down to.

That's my only real issue with the Mass Effect series.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juin 2011 - 01:02 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Those have no effect on outcome, lives lost, or praise given compared to Paragon choices. You may have less content, which is consistent with the arguement.

That still doesn't change the fact that Paragons have the best outcomes when lives lost, content, and praise are concerned. It hurts the game knowing that choosing the Paragon option will result in that... really a shame... because now, the notion of having a tough choice is gone.

It also kinda defeats the point of comparing choices and outcomes.  Paragons will be able to smile the most about their choices while everyone else talks more about what wasn't there or what they lost... that's basically what the choices in the games have boiled down to.

That's my only real issue with the Mass Effect series.

It does harm the Paragon choices as much as the Renegade options. The whole sunshine and rainbows situation with the Paragon options makes them flat out boring and uninteresting. That prevents me from doing more Paragon leaning playthroughs.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

To me it deflates the choice, but personally I like seeing things work out. I was just hoping the best outcomes would come from personally making a difficult choice instead of having to hit the blue button every time (no matter what it says and no matter what the odds are against it).