233 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Well, I have to give this thread credit for not sounding like those other threads, which contains whiners arguing like Renegade is their way to compensate for their ****ty childhood.

[wright1978]

Some renegades don't like that they can't sign up with cerberus. Personally i'm not overly pro alliance or Cerberus. I think they could both do with a kick up the ass from Shepherd. Personally i play a mix of paragon and renegade as i think both utter extremes are a bit silly. I'm looking forward to see if i've made the right judgements over 2 games. If it turns out a choice i made had a consequence i didn't expect i'm not going to whine about how my decision was the practical one.

[Severyx]

GodWood wrote...

1/ We're cut of extra content that reflect our past choices (unlike paragons)

Where did you hear this false information?

I seem to recall hearing C-Hud himself say that renegades don't lose out, they just get different outcomes. It's important to the team to not punish players for their choices.

Different != Cut

Modifié par Severyx, 15 mai 2011 - 11:32 .

[hc00]

Severyx wrote...

GodWood wrote...

1/ We're cut of extra content that reflect our past choices (unlike paragons)

Where did you hear this false information?

I seem to recall hearing C-Hud himself say that renegades don't lose out, they just get different outcomes. It's important to the team to not punish players for their choices.

Different != Cut

I think what he is reffering to is, stuff like that drug dealer I mentioned.  Small side characters, where a renegade would kill them as it is the right choice, so you dont see them in the next game, thats what he means by loss of content, as we dont see them, but we also dont see the effect removing them had.

Paragons that let them live because they had a feeling they would stop being criminals at least have cameos.

[MDT1]

hc00 wrote...

Bearcut wrote...

--- We don't know that saving the queen was the right thing to do, yet. It seems that way, but... who knows? Did you play DAO? At the end of the game it goes over what happens due to your choices - and sometimes, what seemed to be the "right" choice at the time ended up being worse for the society you impacted. I think BIOWARE will play it right in the end.

Could you give me one example of that please?

As I have finished DAO and there was not one thing that seemed like a good choice that turned out not to be.  At least as far as I can recall.

Supporting Harrowmont seems to be the "paragon" decision, though supporting Behlen seems to be better for the dwarven futur in the end.

The problem I have with the Paragon/renegade system is, that you get a penality for mixing the decisions.
Also I have no Idea how killing an entire species that promises to help you could not be the paragon decision, though it could be the "wrong" decision in the end.

Also renegades are awarded with awesome interrupts!  ^^

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 11:42 .

[Someone With Mass]

I guess the trick is to ask yourself: "Do I want to see this character in the future?"

[hc00]

MDT1 wrote...

Supporting Harrowmont seems to be the "paragon" decision, though supporting Behlen seems to be better for the dwarven futur in the end

How so?  Harrowmont is traditionalist, and destabilizing the dwarven people in order to get power from the rightful hier (spelt wrong?)  an hier who is trying to move the dwarven people ahead sociologically in order to prevent their extinction. 
 
How could harrowmont be seen as paragon.  I thought the whole point of him was so if you were playing dwarf noble you didn't have to side with the guy who betrayed you, if your noble is the kind to hold grudges. 
 
After all its just harrowmonts word vs bhelens about whether bhelens father wanted him to be king.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 11:44 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

[MDT1]

hc00 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Supporting Harrowmont seems to be the "paragon" decision, though supporting Behlen seems to be better for the dwarven futur in the end

How so?  Harrowmont is traditionalist, and destabilizing the dwarven people in order to get power from the rightful hier (spelt wrong?)  an hier who is trying to move the dwarven people ahead sociologically in order to prevent their extinction. 
 
How could harrowmont be seen as paragon.  I thought the whole point of him was so if you were playing dwarf noble you didn't have to side with the guy who betrayed you, if your noble is the kind to hold grudges. 
 
After all its just harrowmonts word vs bhelens about whether bhelens father wanted him to be king.

Bhelen is power hungry and doesn't even bother that he has to kill/remove his older brothers to become king.
There is no reason not to believe Harrowmont and if you make Bhelen king he even accepts the decision instead of trying to kill everyone.

Also you just argumented here he can't be paragon because Bhelen is better for the dwarves but in ME you say its lame that paragon decisions always turn out for the better.

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 11:52 .

[hc00]

MDT1 wrote...

Bhelen is power hungry and doesn't even bother that he has to kill remove his older brothers to become king.
there is no reason not to believe Harrowmont and if you make Bhelken king he even accepts the decision instead of trying to kill everyone.

He is no more powerhungry than Harrowmont, and unless you took part in the dwarven noble origin there is no way to know that he killed his brothers, as both sides were flinging mud pretty erratically.

And harrowmont accepting the decision doesnt mean much, maybe he is a coward, maybe he thinks if he accepts it now he will have a chance to usurp later.  I honestly give bhelen credit for trying to take the crown by force.  He can see, like everyone else who isnt a noble can, that if the dwarves carry on as they are they wont be carrying on much longer, and trys to fight to save them.

I wasnt saying anything about paragon, I said choices that are obviously the right ones, that due to bad writing turn out to be the wrong ones, that has nothing to do with paragon.

It is only being associated with paragon and renegade at the moment as the choices that are right but through cack handed writing turn out to be bad are almost univerally renegade choices in ME1 and 2.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 11:53 .

[Apollo Starflare]

hc00 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Supporting Harrowmont seems to be the "paragon" decision, though supporting Behlen seems to be better for the dwarven futur in the end

How so?  Harrowmont is traditionalist, and destabilizing the dwarven people in order to get power from the rightful hier (spelt wrong?)  an hier who is trying to move the dwarven people ahead sociologically in order to prevent their extinction.

Indeed. You can't really drag DAO into this because the lack of a morality meter goes far beyond just whether you get points one way or the other. By ME standards NEITHER of the two choices presented there are Paragon (hah).

However if you cut that bit out of the argument it is still a valid point. Regardless of which option you picked in Orzammar you got both positive and negative side effects resulting from it.

[MDT1]

The problem with your argumentation (and mine) is that your "obvious" is just as subjectiv as mine, as it was "obvious" for me that Harrowmont is paragon as it was "obvious" form me that giving the rachni a second chance is the right thing to do.
This problem is a repeating pattern in human history when the most brilliant mind could make "obvious" mistakes, but "obviously" he thought it was the right thing to do as he would "obviously" have acted differnt otherwise.

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 12:05 .

[MDT1]

In my different playthroughs the main difference between P and R I realized:
P can meet the people he didn't kill in ME1
R has better interrupts.

Its only speculation to say all P decisions turn out better in ME3, though I would be disappointed if this shows to be true.

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 12:11 .

[hc00]

MDT1 wrote...

The problem with your argumentation (and mine) is that your "obvious" is just as subjectiv as mine, as it was "obvious" for me that Harrowmont is paragon as it was "obvious" form me that giving the rachni a second chance is the right thing to do.
This problem is a repeating pattern in human history when the most brilliant mind could make "obvious" mistakes, but "obviously" he thought it was the right thing to do as he would "obviously" have acted differnt otherwise.

Yes you are right in that right and wrong are far too objective to be truley definable.

Seriously though, I dont understand how you could feel either of those to be the right choice.

Lets take the dwarves for example.  It is a historic trend that the dwarves have obviously been fighting a losing battle for centuries, and that alot of this is due to the staunch traditionalism of the noble cast.  If you ask other dwarves they make it clear that it is dwarven isolationism that is causing the society to fall.   So Harrowmont wants to continue this downwards slide, Bhelen wants to take actions that very possibly will halt or reverse it (though saving the dwarves may not universally be his goal, the actions he needs to acheive his personal goals are one and the same as those who want to save the dwarves)

With that in mind I dont understand how you could feel harrowmont to be the right choice.  Yes Harrowmont himself may be a better person than Bhelen, but thier goals are what matters.


By the way, I am not claiming your conclusion is wrong, I just literally cannot fathom how you arrived at it.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 12:15 .

[MDT1]

hc00 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

The problem with your argumentation (and mine) is that your "obvious" is just as subjectiv as mine, as it was "obvious" for me that Harrowmont is paragon as it was "obvious" form me that giving the rachni a second chance is the right thing to do.
This problem is a repeating pattern in human history when the most brilliant mind could make "obvious" mistakes, but "obviously" he thought it was the right thing to do as he would "obviously" have acted differnt otherwise.

Yes you are right in that right and wrong are far too objective to be truley definable.

Seriously though, I dont understand how you could feel either of those to be the right choice.

Lets take the dwarves for example.  It is a historic trend that the dwarves have obviously been fighting a losing battle for centuries, and that alot of this is due to the staunch traditionalism of the noble cast.  If you ask other dwarves they make it clear that it is dwarven isolationism that is causing the society to fall.   So Harrowmont wants to continue this downwards slide, Bhelen wants to take actions that very possibly will halt or reverse it (though saving the dwarves may not universally be his goal, the actions he needs to acheive his personal goals are one and the same as those who want to save the dwarves)

With that in mind I dont understand how you could feel harrowmont to be the right choice.  Yes Harrowmont himself may be a better person than Bhelen, but thier goals are what matters.

Because the character is everything I think I can base me decision upon. Every single major dictator in the 20th century claimed that he knew the problems of his country and could solve them. I personally see no reason to trust Bhelen to care about anything but himself once he has gained power while Harrowmont seems at least to have a noble heart.

hc00 wrote...

By the way, I am not claiming your conclusion is wrong, I just literally cannot fathom how you arrived at it.

This sentence holds much wisdome. There would be much less agression in this forum if more people would realize that.

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 12:24 .

[hc00]

MDT1 wrote...
I personally see no reason to trust Bhelen to care about anything but himself once he has gained power

That is part of what means bhelen is more trustworthy, bhelens plans will alienate the traditionalist members of the noble cast, meaning he has to rely on common support to save his crown, the only way he can win common support is by allowing them more rights and such, which is exactly what the dwarven people need to prevent the stagnation which is killing them.

Compared to Harrowmont who is going to base his entire rule around appeasing his detractors, which isnt a good stance for a leader to take.

Still I do understand your point.  Dont agree, but it makes sense now you have pointed it out.  I mean we have a greater understanding of the dwarven culture and the problems that face it than the protaganist really would, so the protaganist would have to base more of his decision on the relative trustworthyness of the characters.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 12:28 .

[MDT1]

hc00 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...
I personally see no reason to trust Bhelen to care about anything but himself once he has gained power

That is part of what means bhelen is more trustworthy, bhelens plans will alienate the traditionalist members of the noble cast, meaning he has to rely on common support to save his crown, the only way he can win common support is by allowing them more rights and such, which is exactly what the dwarven people need to prevent the stagnation which is killing them.

Still I do understand your point.  Dont agree, but it makes sense now you have pointed it out.

This is true, but my actual fear was, that once he gains power he just eliminates his enemys in the nobility and then just reigns to make himself and his noble supporters even richer without actually improving anything for the common dwarves.
In the end he reminds me of Lenin.

Perhaps I was distrusting him that much because I took the quest with those mysterious papers Bhelens assistent has that claim Harrowmont promised the same to two different people and while doing it I stumbled over this library guy who just told me those documents were forged by his assistent.
First contact fail I guess.

Modifié par MDT1, 15 mai 2011 - 12:44 .

[Bearcut]

hc00 wrote...

Bearcut wrote...

--- We don't know that saving the queen was the right thing to do, yet. It seems that way, but... who knows? Did you play DAO? At the end of the game it goes over what happens due to your choices - and sometimes, what seemed to be the "right" choice at the time ended up being worse for the society you impacted. I think BIOWARE will play it right in the end.

Could you give me one example of that please?

As I have finished DAO and there was not one thing that seemed like a good choice that turned out not to be.  At least as far as I can recall.

Harrowmont.

[Bearcut]

Ok whoa. I was just reading some of the DAO arguments.. and I think you guys missed my point.

What I meant by the DAO comment was that I feel that Bioware will do a good job balancing our choices when the story wraps up. That's all.

[hc00]

Bearcut wrote...

Ok whoa. I was just reading some of the DAO arguments.. and I think you guys missed my point.

What I meant by the DAO comment was that I feel that Bioware will do a good job balancing our choices when the story wraps up. That's all.

I personally dont think they will, as they havent so far.

Still I dont really care all that much, as long as the game looks good and plays good I can probably just ignore any facets of the story that I find offensively nonsensical.

If the entire story hinges on one of those damned paragon decisions though I will buy plane tickets so that I can personally punch hudson in the throat.

[skcih-deraj]

I play renegade and I've never felt cheated. (Sure I also have paragon and I guess a paragade... but thats not the point) I like how some renegades on the site seem to enjoy whining about a game that hasn't come out yet. In ME2 if a character didn't appear is becuase you killed them. If its about the whole Cerberus thing well... you actually thought that partnership would last?

I was satisfied with what renegades got in ME2 and if you played paragon and got more fancy diologue from a character who you let live in the first game thats great really! While renegades may has a differant kind of experiance going into ME3, who's to say that paragons (and some of those descisions they continue to argue was right and that renegades are stupid for not picking) wont have negative consequenses.

And this is the only the 100th (renegades are getting robbed!) thread in the last month. (I think there was a paragon one last weak?) Anyway both sides should stop crying becuase you don't even know whats happening yet. For those who complain about a choise you made in game being the reason why your particular allingment is being cheated the answer is simple. Do another playthrough and change it.

[hc00]

skcih-deraj wrote...

I play renegade and I've never felt cheated. (Sure I also have paragon and I guess a paragade... but thats not the point) I like how some renegades on the site seem to enjoy whining about a game that hasn't come out yet. In ME2 if a character didn't appear is becuase you killed them. If its about the whole Cerberus thing well... you actually thought that partnership would last?

I was satisfied with what renegades got in ME2 and if you played paragon and got more fancy diologue from a character who you let live in the first game thats great really! While renegades may has a differant kind of experiance going into ME3, who's to say that paragons (and some of those descisions they continue to argue was right and that renegades are stupid for not picking) wont have negative consequenses.

And this is the only the 100th (renegades are getting robbed!) thread in the last month. (I think there was a paragon one last weak?) Anyway both sides should stop crying becuase you don't even know whats happening yet. For those who complain about a choise you made in game being the reason why your particular allingment is being cheated the answer is simple. Do another playthrough and change it.

So what you are saying is that, if an episodic story that you have become heavily emotionally invested in suddenly goes bat**** insane and nothing makes a damned bit of sense, and that half the plot strands upto that point suddenly dissapear or make no difference. And characters and organisations suddenly start acting in almost the polar opposite way than they have been shown to act in the other episodes.

It is your fault for being attached to the story?

I mean admittedly ME3 isnt that bad, but still.

[skcih-deraj]

hc00 wrote...

skcih-deraj wrote...

I play renegade and I've never felt cheated. (Sure I also have paragon and I guess a paragade... but thats not the point) I like how some renegades on the site seem to enjoy whining about a game that hasn't come out yet. In ME2 if a character didn't appear is becuase you killed them. If its about the whole Cerberus thing well... you actually thought that partnership would last?

I was satisfied with what renegades got in ME2 and if you played paragon and got more fancy diologue from a character who you let live in the first game thats great really! While renegades may has a differant kind of experiance going into ME3, who's to say that paragons (and some of those descisions they continue to argue was right and that renegades are stupid for not picking) wont have negative consequenses.

And this is the only the 100th (renegades are getting robbed!) thread in the last month. (I think there was a paragon one last weak?) Anyway both sides should stop crying becuase you don't even know whats happening yet. For those who complain about a choise you made in game being the reason why your particular allingment is being cheated the answer is simple. Do another playthrough and change it.

So what you are saying is that, if an episodic story that you have become heavily emotionally invested in suddenly goes bat**** insane and nothing makes a damned bit of sense, and that half the plot strands upto that point suddenly dissapear or make no difference. And characters and organisations suddenly start acting in almost the polar opposite way than they have been shown to act in the other episodes.

It is your fault for being attached to the story?

I mean admittedly ME3 isnt that bad, but still.

Not what I was saying at all. The game hasn't even come out yet so saying whether or not its made based on the little information we have isn't exactly fair. But yeah pick every thing apart, jeeze.  

We know next to nothing about the story aside from "the reapers are comming" and I just think it's a little early to judge on who supposedly got cheated. And the whole point of my post was to point out all the whining renegades (and some paragons!) do.

[hc00]

skcih-deraj wrote...
Not what I was saying at all. The game hasn't even come out yet so saying whether or not its made based on the little information we have isn't exactly fair. But yeah pick every thing apart, jeeze.  

We know next to nothing about the story aside from "the reapers are comming" and I just think it's a little early to judge on who supposedly got cheated. And the whole point of my post was to point out all the whining renegades (and some paragons!) do.

Unfortunately thats how it has to be.  These are games in which the players become heavily invested, but each player has distinct ideas on how it should end, and will feel cheated if it doesnt end how they feel it should (maybe most is more accurat than each).

Every bit of information that makes it seem like the end will be different than a player wanted will create hundreds of angry people, and unfortunately nearly all the info released so far has been the kind that ruins renegade players ideas of how the game will end.

Now it is a bit early to definatively state the game/story will be a pile of drosh, but all the signs so far have been disconcerting.

[Tamcia]

They can't handle the consequences of their choices.