131 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

In my canon playthrough, I said to concentrate on Sovereign. The Council ended up dying but not intentionally. Tidbit: in Mass Effect 2, the Turian store owner blames Admiral Hackett and not Shepard for the death of the Council.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

In my canon playthrough, I said to concentrate on Sovereign. The Council ended up dying but not intentionally. Tidbit: in Mass Effect 2, the Turian store owner blames Admiral Hackett and not Shepard for the death of the Council.

Really? What was your Paragon/Renegade score? 'cause I still get blamed for it even though I made the netural choice too. Well, not personally, he doesn't mention anyone by name. He just seems to be blaming humanity as a whole in my game.

You need to have the Paragon response available when you talk to him.

[Golden Owl]

InvincibleHero wrote...

AK404 wrote...

Of course, the results of Arrival pretty much put an end to any clean conscience Shep might have kept throughout the two games...

Something that is unavoidable shouldn't weigh that heavily on the mind. if I had to push a button to save the rest of the Earth at a cost of 300,000 I'd press it right away. We're talking a small percentatge vs hundreds of billions of other lifeforms that would be reaped. A pittance to pay really.

No, I disargree...It would still weigh heavily on the concience, his still responsible for the deaths of 300,000, despite having no choice, he did what he had to, but I can't see how that would make anthing easier on his conscience,

[Nathan Redgrave]

Golden Owl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

AK404 wrote...

Of course, the results of Arrival pretty much put an end to any clean conscience Shep might have kept throughout the two games...

Something that is unavoidable shouldn't weigh that heavily on the mind. if I had to push a button to save the rest of the Earth at a cost of 300,000 I'd press it right away. We're talking a small percentatge vs hundreds of billions of other lifeforms that would be reaped. A pittance to pay really.

No, I disargree...It would still weigh heavily on the concience, his still responsible for the deaths of 300,000, despite having no choice, he did what he had to, but I can't see how that would make anthing easier on his conscience,

The "Paragon" response to letting Kate Bowman die to capture Balak is a good idea of how Shepard's mind would work in such a situation--Shepard says he's willing to let their faces keep him up at night "if your family can sleep soundly."

Same deal with Arrival, only on a much larger scale--three hundred thousand lives, instead of just three. It's not that it doesn't weigh on the conscience, it's that Shepard is willing to let it weigh on his conscience.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 13 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[008Zulu]

I suppose it's what you can live with as to how "clean" your conscious can be.

[Ultai]

I like this thread, good discussion and I agree that the near jedi mind trick levels of auto blue/red your way out of tough situations is getting a bit ridiculous. It's the main reason why I choose the white option when I release Grunt. You can end up getting a renegade interrupt to shoot Grunt into compliance, or let it pass and choose some dialog and do it anyway. I think the renegade line is something like "That was option A, here's option B!" Good stuff

[Thompson family]

Seboist wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

Waaait. Now I'm totally confused. I never, ever, got the impression that Zaeed had been hired to liberate this refinery. I always thought we were there to kill Vido. That was the mission. The refinery was just where Vido happened to be.

Officially Zaeed was hired to liberate the refinery but he had ulterior motives. =)

Seboist is right, aimlessgun. When Shep meets Zaeed on Omega, Zaeed says TIM made a deal.  The owners of the refinery paid Zaeed to get it back. TIM agreed — according to Zaeed — to have Shep help him out. Zaeed says he took the job just before TIM contacted him. Zaeed mentions nothing about Vido until the squad is on the ground. (See correction below.)

My Shep was not pleased to hear about TIM's "arrangement" with Zaeed and took the dialouge option on Omega to tell Zaeed so. Then Shep was furious to find out it was all a ruse to dragoon him into killing the leader of a merc gang.


CORRECTION: I started a new game and checked this. Zaeed does say Vido, the leader of the Blue Suns, took over the refinery but mentions nothing about the grudge between them.

Modifié par Thompson family, 17 mai 2011 - 02:49 .

[Moiaussi]

Anyone with a completely clean conscience, who never doubts their actions and has no regrets whatsoever is probably at least some level of psychopath.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 13 mai 2011 - 10:53 .

[MisterJB]

aimlessgun wrote...
Then I find out the workers burn for nothing.

Well, as a Renegade, you put down a very dangerous man. Doesn't that count for something?

[Moiaussi]

MisterJB wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...
Then I find out the workers burn for nothing.

Well, as a Renegade, you put down a very dangerous man. Doesn't that count for something?

If Zaeed had given my Infiltrator the full intel and him simply handle it, or even learned how to use a sniper rifle so he could do the job right himself, the 'dangerous man' would have gone down without needing to endanger any workers, so no, not much at all.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Yeah, not a huge fan of the "instant win" dialogue choices that take away weight from the possible choices (such as Zaeed's loyalty, Tali's trial) and often skip them.

On the value of a clean conscience: a good few of the paragon choices bother me more than the neutral or renegade options - and this from someone who catches spiders in the house and releases them outside rather than squashing them.

It's like the developers haven't quite worked out whether the paragon/renegade system means:

• good of a few present individuals vs. survival of the many or
• diplomatic vs. pointed or
• love aliens vs. humans first or
• cuddle the kitten vs eject it from an airlock

I hope they're more consistent in ME3.  My favorite interpretation is used in Samesh Bhatia's side mission; paragon/renegade rely on the attitude and methods, not on the end choice.  Legion's loyalty mission desperately needed this system. 

As Mr. Sondheim says, "Nice is different than good."   

[Katzen]

The whole talk-jutsu nonsense dumbs down hard choices to a Star Wars esque jedi mind trick level.

Shepard with his talk-jutsu turned a lifelong unrepentant criminal like Helena Blake into a social worker....... seriously? LOL

I completely agree.

It really bothered me when it came to the Tali/Legion, Jack/Miranda choices. Instead of it being a tough decision where you lose one of your squad mates trust no matter what the choice was removed by being able to save BOTH. Because unless you really didn't like one of the characters (in which case the original decision is trivial anyways) why wouldn't you save both?

It should have been a real choice with real consequences where picking one means the other dies in the suicide mission. That's a substancial choice rather than the pseudo-choice BS they gave us.

[Dean_the_Young]

Katzen wrote...

The whole talk-jutsu nonsense dumbs down hard choices to a Star Wars esque jedi mind trick level.

Shepard with his talk-jutsu turned a lifelong unrepentant criminal like Helena Blake into a social worker....... seriously? LOL

I completely agree.

It really bothered me when it came to the Tali/Legion, Jack/Miranda choices. Instead of it being a tough decision where you lose one of your squad mates trust no matter what the choice was removed by being able to save BOTH. Because unless you really didn't like one of the characters (in which case the original decision is trivial anyways) why wouldn't you save both?

It should have been a real choice with real consequences where picking one means the other dies in the suicide mission. That's a substancial choice rather than the pseudo-choice BS they gave us.

In regards to the confrontations, I've found them more than a little salvaged by the 'make up' persuasion checks that follow if you side against one or the other. Those defenses and arguments are for more personal, and plausible, in the way they play to the individual's reasonings and beliefs.

[Katzen]

Seboist wrote...

Sacrificing the council is the best decision from the POV of my Shep and myself.

The save the council decision doesn't even make sense considering Shepard risked everything when she stormed off solo to Ilos with the belief the galaxy's survival was at stake. So, her sacrificing Alliance ships to save the Council comes off to me as suggesting she doesn't think Sovereign is that big of a deal.

Especially because when you pull up to the citadel the first time Ashley comments that it is bigger and has more firepower than any ship in the Alliance Fleet.

[Mykel54]

Am i the only one that found Zaeed loyalty very similar to the story of how Anderson has rejected as Spectre candidate? I mean how Saren blowed up the industrial building killing everyone on the process and blaming Anderson for it. I always found that pretty funny.

Personally i always go renegade on Zaeed loyalty and avoid the paragon/renegade dialogue unless it is the one that fits better for my shepard. As an example on the crew conflicts (ex.jack/miranda) i always pick one over the other, it is just unrealistic to be able to be friendly with everyone, i find having tensions on the own team makes for more realistic situation and more risk of people dying in the suicide mission due to unloyal squadmates.

[James2912]

aimlessgun wrote...

There's been a lot of furor over whether paragons or renegades get punished, or if one side gets better outcomes, if one side is favored by Bioware etc.

One important question I want to ask is, how much do people value a clean conscience when looking at outcomes?

I think coming out with a clean conscience has real value. Which is why I sometimes get annoyed by how the game treats (some) paragon decisions.

Let's take Zaeed's loyalty mission as an example. You initially get what seems like a choice: save the workers or get Zaeed's loyalty. However, at the end of the day, both paths get Zaeed's loyalty.

Now you may say, hey aimless, the outcome is the same, you get Zaeed's loyalty either way. And since renegade = douchebag, why do you care the workers burned?

Renegade to me does not = douchebag. It means maximizing your chances of stopping the reapers regardless of moral concerns. But it still hurts to make immoral decisions, even if you are making them for the greater good. Choosing Zaeed over the workers was a tough decision. Then I find out the workers burn for nothing.

At the end of the mission, the outcome does not look equal to me. Renegades get Zaeed's loyalty. Paragons get Zaeed's loyalty PLUS a clean conscience. I think a clean conscience has real value, and thus I see those outcomes as unequal.

Now, many para/ren decisions don't apply to this. And obviously Bioware cannot go through the game having paragons get inferior results just to feel good about themselves. But I think some decisions should play out that way, to make the choices seem more real, to make them actual choices. The choice in Zaeed's LM is a false choice. I want less of those.

I understand what your saying and might even agree with you to a point. As in renegade decisions seem to be the stupid douchebag way to go about things, when it could be so much more! But my conscience isn't really affected by a videogame. I would'nt  mind playing evil shepard but as long as it was meant to be that way. Renegade isn't suppossed to be evil but the outcomes of decisions make it look that way, because you can often get the same results but without alienating everyone using the paragon decision i.e. saving the council.

Modifié par James2912, 14 mai 2011 - 12:18 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

Mykel54 wrote...

As an example on the crew conflicts (ex.jack/miranda) i always pick one over the other, it is just unrealistic to be able to be friendly with everyone, i find having tensions on the own team makes for more realistic situation and more risk of people dying in the suicide mission due to unloyal squadmates.

It also gives a good bit more insight into the characters, even if you do persuade the "loser" later.

[Katzen]

In regards to the confrontations, I've found them more than a little salvaged by the 'make up' persuasion checks that follow if you side against one or the other. Those defenses and arguments are for more personal, and plausible, in the way they play to the individual's reasonings and beliefs.

The after-fight persuasion checks were great dialogue, but I resented how easily it was to walk out of the suicide mission unscathed.

The choice on Virmire was emotional, hard, and helped to personalize the fight against Saren.

That the suicide mission, so much more dangerous and against-the-odds, could have such a happy ending made the entire endeavour a little shallow. You have to intentionally make poor decisions, or skip content to lose people. For Bioware's "dark second act" it certainly lacked the grit and sense of realism that comes with a less than fairytale ending.

[Seboist]

Katzen wrote...

In regards to the confrontations, I've found them more than a little salvaged by the 'make up' persuasion checks that follow if you side against one or the other. Those defenses and arguments are for more personal, and plausible, in the way they play to the individual's reasonings and beliefs.

The after-fight persuasion checks were great dialogue, but I resented how easily it was to walk out of the suicide mission unscathed.

The choice on Virmire was emotional, hard, and helped to personalize the fight against Saren.

That the suicide mission, so much more dangerous and against-the-odds, could have such a happy ending made the entire endeavour a little shallow. You have to intentionally make poor decisions, or skip content to lose people. For Bioware's "dark second act" it certainly lacked the grit and sense of realism that comes with a less than fairytale ending.

The fairy tale ending also makes harbinger and his collectors into a total joke.

[DanaScu]

Arijharn wrote...

Except that it was all a Paragon decision, it doesn't really do your argument well to hand wave and try to jedi mind trick us into thinking it was actually 'the renegade thing to do.'

You committed perjury for the sake of your friend or lover.

Note that it wasn't the 'Quarian Admiralty Board' that had the terrible secret, it was Rael'Zorah that had the terrible secret, I think the difference isn't slight.

What perjury? Shepard didn't say they hadn't found any evidence. Shepard didn't address the evidence at all. S/He called the Admiralty Board on their "acting on their own agendas" thing; one wanted peace with the geth, one wanted to go to war against the geth, and the third one wants to take back control of the geth so the quarians have the largest synthetic army in existence. Considering the Board backed down, Shepard might have been on to something there.

[DanaScu]

Mykel54 wrote...

Am i the only one that found Zaeed loyalty very similar to the story of how Anderson has rejected as Spectre candidate? I mean how Saren blowed up the industrial building killing everyone on the process and blaming Anderson for it. I always found that pretty funny.

Personally i always go renegade on Zaeed loyalty and avoid the paragon/renegade dialogue unless it is the one that fits better for my shepard. As an example on the crew conflicts (ex.jack/miranda) i always pick one over the other, it is just unrealistic to be able to be friendly with everyone, i find having tensions on the own team makes for more realistic situation and more risk of people dying in the suicide mission due to unloyal squadmates.

It would have been nice to be able to decide that you didn't want a super powerful mentally/emotionally unstable biotic that has every reason in the galaxy to hate Cerberus on a Cerberus ship with a Cerberus crew. Seriously, reading the dossier on the "recruits" kinda leads to a "yeah right" type of feeling. Obviously Jack was going to be a willing and enthusiastic crewmember, right? It already bad enough that Shepard is supposed to co-exist with the Cerberus cheerleader who admitted she wanted to use a control chip on her/him. And the Cerberus member who doesn't trust them, but will go along with everything they want, until they cross over some imaginary line of his in the sand. Stuff like the biotic torture camp killing kids, killing Kahoku, the thorian creepers, husks, and all the other fun things Cerberus has been involved in isn't enough to make him say "You've gone over the line here."? Then Mr. I'm-getting-paid-Cerberus wants to have a hissy fit over an assassin on the team?

No, I really didn't like the railroading at all. Even if they could have given the illusion of chosing to work with Cerberus, it might not have irritated me as much. TIM tells you if you don't agree you're free to leave, but you never have the option to even try that. Having Shepard go to Anderson/the Council and try to leave Cerberus and get turned down would be one thing, but having to agree to go along with TIM no matter what is annoying to say the least, especially for my sole survivor. Even more so when you figure out that the reason that Anderson and the Council doesn't trust you was because TIM leaked enough information to set it all up in advance. Having to cooperate with Cerberus kind of voids out a clean conscience for me. I so wanted a different dialogue choice when Shepard was talking to a dying Vasir in LotSB; Shepard was working with Cerberus, and simply by association, her/his hands were far from clean.

[ravageye]

cast2007 wrote...

Even though i play as a paragon, I always let the workers die.

Why? Because I know that if Vido escapes, then he'll be able to inflict harm on even more innocents. I figure that the number of innocents that are stuck on the planet is far less than the innocents that he's going to harm if he isn't stopped.

Is it cruel. Of course it is. But it's objective analysis to see what generates the best outcome for the future. Purely cold hearted calculation.

Will it haunt my Shepard. Most definitely. But he'll sleep at night knowing that he made the best choice out of two horrible ones and that a man who would otherwise be out there terrorizing innocents is dead and gone.

on me paragon shep i always let the qoekers die to garuntee his loyalty to me a needed "evil" act for his loyaty mission.

[Agamo45]

Saving humanity is worth more than one man's conscience. That's how I see it.