Moiaussi wrote...
Unlikely based on what? You were wrong about the Racnhi. Given that, why do you insist you are right in predicting all other outcomes?
Unlikely based on what you can extrapolated based on basic knowledge of how rational beings work. Where am I wrong about the rachni? They ar a bug swarm type species that multiply rapidly. It is almost inevitable that real-estate squabbles will happen. However, within the context of the Reaper threat, the reapers being opposed to all organics means that it benefits rachni far more to cooperate with you than it does for them to keep being aggressive, which renders the renegade option of gassing the queen utterly unnecessary. Note that this conclusion is derived from explicitly stated material in-game as well as basic economics and game theory knowledge that someone from a decent American high school can acquire, so it's perfectly in-character for Shepard to come to this conclusion. Also note the utter lack of any justification along the lines of "there's still another game in the series, so you don't know how it'll turn out then", aka metagaming.
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.
Yes. It is. There is no indication that you won't be able to use the CB. As for the inevtiable "studying reaper tech is always bad", keep in mind that mass relays themselves are reaper tech, and that the Thanix cannon thet let you kill the crap out of the Collector ship in the first place was derived from reaper tech, and that mass accelerators (also reaper tech) is what killed the derelict reaper in the first place. More evidence indicates the base can actually be studied than not, and the only real concern Shepard should have is whether TIM would be trying to grow his own Reaper, not some slop about "the soul of the species" and "letting fear compromise who he is." Sun Tzu's The Art of War - good book. More should read it.
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.
Data is pretty sufficient. You have a very powerful dreadnought plus other support vessels (cruisers and frigates and the like) that can be kept. The human fleet would have to wait until the Citadel's arms are open to attack Sovereign anyway, so your real choices are between having the human fleet do nothing at that point and hope the Citadel fleet can wipe out the geth fleet so that none of them are around to stop you from attacing Sovereign, or sending the human fleet in for a surprise flank attack on the geth to take full advantage of the fact that all the organics' forces can be brought to bear in one instant on part of the synthetics' forces, with little to no chance of intervention by the other part of the synthetics' forces. The principle of mass and shock are covered in basic officer training. Commander (rank of O5) Shepard should know this, regardless of Paragon or Renegade.
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.
It's supposed to. It's pretty clear it doesn't. From what I understand, if you killed off the council, the other races remilitarize, with the turians declaring the Treaty of Farixen null and void and building more dreadnoughts.
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.
Clutching at straws much? Purely WMG.
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.
...no, that means we have a difference in opinion of what a word means. I have given you my definition (decisions that result in changes to the main story). All it takes is confirmation of whether you can work with this definition of "major result," or whether you agree that for my def of "major result" (or, hell, we can even call it something else, like "major storyline event"), the paragon option is always better or makes more sense than the renegade option.
"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.
In the absence of more information, all Shepard can do is assume the information he has is true. Now, if it turns out that rewriting the geth and allowing the maintstream geth to try to achieve concensus using the heretics' views makes the geth conclude that Reapers are the future, then awesome, paragon choice that finally bites you in the ass. But it still doesn't invalidate rewriting being the better choice based on what you know at the time.
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.
Rally the crowd is paragon. The suicide mission is winnable without her loyalty, but some of us prefer to roleplay - that is, "what would this Shepard do" instead of "what would the game allow me to do", and it's perfectly within a renegade Shepard's actions to make sure his crew doesn't have emotional baggage. The point with this, again, is that story-wise, paragon options tend to have more reward, and renegade options tend to fall more under jackassery than making the tough but necessary choice.
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...
And....the crew in favor of keeping the base changing tunes mere minutes after you chose to keep it makes sense how? If you don't take character comments/dialogue as meaning anything, I daresay you're not quite hitting the whole point of a story-heavy RPG. Again, CB is not about more or less content, but rather about a renegade option that no one approves of (even the people who approved of it minutes prior), contrasted with the DA decision where you had one in favor of saving the ship and one in favor of holding the fleet back.
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).
Feros - not really? Both charm and intimidate on Erinya gets her to call off the tests, and in either case that sidequest was about contracts, not whether the tests were a good idea. A lot of decisions *could* go pro-renegade - but that's meaningless to this discussion, which is about the track record of how none of the "tough" choices you had to make as a renegade actually get you anything, and how being a paragon means you get both a short term moral plus and a long term strategic plus. And also about how what makes an action exclusively paragon/renegade doesn't make sense sometimes.
tldr: stop using "this could happen in ME3" as a rebuttal, because decisions can only be judged by what is known at the time, and in all the major storyline-affecting decisions, paragon choices either have better results or make more sense than renegade ones.
Retour en haut
...pretty much makes my destroying the base null and void....now I am wondering at the point of destroying it.
....
