233 réponses à ce sujet

[Nimrodell]

hc00 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

And as I said, renegade very often doesn't have to kill those random joe 'helpers' thus geting those precious cameos... so again I don't see the validity of these arguments. There is one injust thing toward renegades tho - true renegade would do what Jack proposes, piracy, and would not risk his/hers arse on the suicide mission, and would send others to die behind the relay... that's pragmatic, if there's a claim that only renegades are pragmatic.

Most of your post is correct except for this.  You are doing that same damned thing that everyone does.  Assuming renegade = evil.

Renegade doesnt mean evil, renegade means does everything to win, a paragon may risk failing the mission to save someone, a renegade will not, a paragon will sacrifice resources that should be used to ensure the success of the mission on good causes, such as feeding the poor, a renegade will not.

Niether is inherantly good or bad, a paragon that helps some people but fails at a mission and ultimately harms more people would be a bad person, a renegade which ruins a few thousand peoples lives to save a few hundred million would be a good person.

Please, try to find my previous posts on this thread and on other renegade threads, been trying to explain this whole time that renegades are not evil and been trying to show that to people. Been even writing about deception that convo wheel does with renegade choices, so no, I'm on your side on this. Renegades by default definition are not evil or killing idiots, tis just how BW did it and players understood it... almost all of em get caught into I'll use first bottom option or interrupt when it comes to ME2... and it's actually not working that way if one wants to play renegade that is actually pragmatic. As I said before, long before, my best playthrough was as renegade, full one, but also smart one... ah I can't wait to play her in ME3 'cause she is not mindless killer... she kills when there's a possible risk, but she won't push guy from the window just 'cause the interrupt started blinking, she needs information this she waits for intimidation option and in ME1 it was even easier, thanks to passives like Intimidation, so Fist, Helena Blake were alive for me, I did intimidate them good as well as I offended Wrex but had him alive. Ofc that's infamous talk-jutsu, but what kind of renegade that is bad ass if he/she can't intimidate? That renegade is pure bollox (pardon my French). Renegades are not judges, they kill when they must, ofc, I need more optons to beat up people and few famous lines from Commando - Remember I told ya I'll kill ya the last? I lied... for all those who didn't correct their ways.
As for piracy and renegades thing if that was the problem that made you think Im considering all renegades evil... nah that was just joking actually, RL military leaders, politicians and terrorists are actually renegades and many of them do put their arses on the line for something they consider a greater good. So, no m8, I don't perceive renegades by default to be evil, tis players themselves who make them such.

[hc00]

alx119 wrote...

Do they help you? Do your efforts, and all the human lives wasted for them actually did any good? Sure galaxy loves you and all that, well duh, but they don't help you in fact, they tell you to gtfo of their faces, basically you don't win anything but a spectre range (which is pretty much symbolic). Negative effects? Hell if it had negative effects as it is, then what a waste of lives. Now what it takes is to stand their ****ing faces, when you wasted so many lives to actually get "Ah yes the Reapers"... I mean come on :/ Is really easy to say, nah **** them, but is harder to say, ok, they questioned all my actions and never were happy with anything I did, but still they are important for the people on the citadel, they are a symbol of unity and justice, I should save them.

And you can't blame Bioware for that, what do you want, them to rate the game 18+ just cause you want them to incentivate bad actions? I'm sorry but as I said, bad will always be bad, good will always be good.

Have you played ME2?  One of the negative effects if you let the council die is that humans and turians enter a cold war, and that asari all but abandon thier duties protecting council space. 

And humanity doesnt lose many people when they save the council, a couple of thousand and a few ships.  Which is nothing.  The council are still inneffectual ****s, but they were before hand so this makes no difference and if you let them die the new council are inneffectual ****s.

WHY WOULD THE GAME NEED TO BE 18+ IF NEGATIVE ACTIONS WERE INCENTIVISED?!

Your statement was so illogical it was painful.

I will say it again, as you seem to have missed it, why is it harder to save the council?

Modifié par hc00, 17 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[alx119]

Nimrodell wrote...

hc00 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

And as I said, renegade very often doesn't have to kill those random joe 'helpers' thus geting those precious cameos... so again I don't see the validity of these arguments. There is one injust thing toward renegades tho - true renegade would do what Jack proposes, piracy, and would not risk his/hers arse on the suicide mission, and would send others to die behind the relay... that's pragmatic, if there's a claim that only renegades are pragmatic.

Most of your post is correct except for this.  You are doing that same damned thing that everyone does.  Assuming renegade = evil.

Renegade doesnt mean evil, renegade means does everything to win, a paragon may risk failing the mission to save someone, a renegade will not, a paragon will sacrifice resources that should be used to ensure the success of the mission on good causes, such as feeding the poor, a renegade will not.

Niether is inherantly good or bad, a paragon that helps some people but fails at a mission and ultimately harms more people would be a bad person, a renegade which ruins a few thousand peoples lives to save a few hundred million would be a good person.

Please, try to find my previous posts on this thread and on other renegade threads, been trying to explain this whole time that renegades are not evil and been trying to show that to people. Been even writing about deception that convo wheel does with renegade choices, so no, I'm on your side on this. Renegades by default definition are not evil or killing idiots, tis just how BW did it and players understood it... almost all of em get caught into I'll use first bottom option or interrupt when it comes to ME2... and it's actually not working that way if one wants to play renegade that is actually pragmatic. As I said before, long before, my best playthrough was as renegade, full one, but also smart one... ah I can't wait to play her in ME3 'cause she is not mindless killer... she kills when there's a possible risk, but she won't push guy from the window just 'cause the interrupt started blinking, she needs information this she waits for intimidation option and in ME1 it was even easier, thanks to passives like Intimidation, so Fist, Helena Blake were alive for me, I did intimidate them good as well as I offended Wrex but had him alive. Ofc that's infamous talk-jutsu, but what kind of renegade that is bad ass if he/she can't intimidate? That renegade is pure bollox (pardon my French). Renegades are not judges, they kill when they must, ofc, I need more optons to beat up people and few famous lines from Commando - Remember I told ya I'll kill ya the last? I lied... for all those who didn't correct their ways.
As for piracy and renegades thing if that was the problem that made you think Im considering all renegades evil... nah that was just joking actually, RL military leaders, politicians and terrorists are actually renegades and many of them do put their arses on the line for something they consider a greater good. So, no m8, I don't perceive renegades by default to be evil, tis players themselves who make them such.

I agree with this definition of the renegade as it is as well as its the player themselves the ones who make them look evil, still, if you have this deffinition in mind, I don't understand why complain about it :/ I mean I've seen both being quite equal, one with X consequences, the other with Y consequences.

As one of you said, if you go for the mission, you're ruthless and you "don't feed the poor" well, the poor won't help you, obviously. If you stop to feed the poor, and you complete the mission, then awesome.
There's a line the same Shepard says on ME1, we can't predict the actions of the others, but we can predict ours.
You may go for the mission nonstop, and succeed, or you can risk it, stop to save whoever is in danger, risk to fail the mission and succeed as well.

Hell as you're putting it, Paragons should complain more since they have it harder.
Hence why I see no point in the topic talked in this post.

Is the consequences of your actions :X

[alx119]

hc00 wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Do they help you? Do your efforts, and all the human lives wasted for them actually did any good? Sure galaxy loves you and all that, well duh, but they don't help you in fact, they tell you to gtfo of their faces, basically you don't win anything but a spectre range (which is pretty much symbolic). Negative effects? Hell if it had negative effects as it is, then what a waste of lives. Now what it takes is to stand their ****ing faces, when you wasted so many lives to actually get "Ah yes the Reapers"... I mean come on :/ Is really easy to say, nah **** them, but is harder to say, ok, they questioned all my actions and never were happy with anything I did, but still they are important for the people on the citadel, they are a symbol of unity and justice, I should save them.

And you can't blame Bioware for that, what do you want, them to rate the game 18+ just cause you want them to incentivate bad actions? I'm sorry but as I said, bad will always be bad, good will always be good.

Have you played ME2?  One of the negative effects if you let the council die is that humans and turians enter a cold war, and that asari all but abandon thier duties protecting council space. 

And humanity doesnt lose many people when they save the council, a couple of thousand and a few ships.  Which is nothing.  The council are still inneffectual ****s, but they were before hand so this makes no difference and if you let them die the new council are inneffectual ****s.

WHY WOULD THE GAME NEED TO BE 18+ IF NEGATIVE ACTIONS WERE INCENTIVISED?!

Your statement was so illogical it was painful.

I will say it again, as you seem to have missed it, why is it harder to save the council?

Uh huh, then why did you kill the council? I mean, if a HUMAN made the decission of let them rot, the consequences are clear, aliens ain't gonna like humanity. What do you want, them to say YAY HUMANS? 

They lose people, that's the thing. For a council that was underestimating them. It's harder in ME1, where they were ****s towards you and pretty much humanity (though this is also debatable), it's easier to let them die than to rescue them, put yourself on the skin of Shepard, and if you underestimate human lives, then dude... wth.
I know it's a videogame and stuff, but still it's supposed to put you on the skin of the commander, If you can't see the moral repercusion of "leaving the council to die" then again, wth.

And you lacking to see the logic on it is quite painful as well, if you give incentives for punching people, or shooting people... do you think that's a 10+ game? I mean, If I was a father, I wouldn't like my kids to learn that "shooting people gives me good stuff".

[ladyvader]

I didn't read the whole thread. I just want to add this about how renegades feel screwed that they can't continue to work for Cerberus.

When Liara asks Shepard back on the Normandy how he/she was truly feeling. The lower right response, which I always took as the renegade response, Shepard said he/she was tired of dealing with Cerberus. So in a way, it is not much of a surprise to me that Shepard would be back with the Alliance. Especially after the events Arrival.

[Dave of Canada]

(all this is obviously my opinion)

Rachni.
"I feel this person is dangerous, I get rid of them."
"I trust this person, let them go."

How it should've played out in ME2.
Renegade: Add a scientist from the facility that mentions you killing the Rachni, maybe a Krogan on Tuchanka saying he heard what you did from Wrex / Wreav and respects you for it.
Paragon: The Rachni Queen cameo remains unchanged, maybe a few Krogan are bitter toward you for hearing about what you did to the Rachni Queen.

How it played out in ME2:
Renegade: Absolutely nothing.
Paragon: Rachni turns out are good and will help you.

How it should play out in ME3.
Renegade: Less allies from the (now extinct) Rachni, Krogan are potentially easier to recruit / deal with.
Paragon: More allies from the Rachni, Krogan are potentially harder to deal with.

Council.
"Let the Council die, what have they done for us?" + "We have to take Sovereign down, no matter the cost."
"Let's save the Council!"

Note: Council choice was mostly handled well, though it should have expanded more instead of leaving stuff out.

How it should've played in ME2.
Renegade: Aliens still hate Shepard and humans (that was realistic), we meet the new Council (human council or new alien council) and the idea that everybody is planning to go at war with each other is more developed (instead of put on the wayside).
Paragon: The Paragon side of things worked relatively well, it demonstrated everything it should show.

How it played in ME2.
Renegade: Everybody hates you, Council doesn't want to talk with you and the war thing is suggested but put to the wayside.
Paragon: Everybody loves you, Council talks with you again, you always have the option to become a Council Spectre again, you still get messages of aliens preparing.

How it should play out in ME3.
Renegade: The individual fleets are stronger, more prepared to handle the Reapers due to them preparing for the war against the humans. Council fleet is harder to recruit as a result.
Paragon: The fleets are weaker, having not prepared for anything. The Council fleet is easier to recruit due to the respect for Shepard.

[cut off]

There you go, consequences for both sides for the two examples that are often brought up. No "morality" gets cheated, everybody has benefits and consequences for their decisions. It shouldn't be a question of happy ending vs bad ending, it should be an actual choice between what's presented before you.

I'd be able to handle the "deal with the consequences of your actions" if both sides had consequences, until that happens though stop saying it.

I'd probably do "how it'll probably play out in ME3." though I'd prefer to remain optomistic and hope the magazines are just incorrect about everything they've said so far about our decisions.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 mai 2011 - 09:48 .

[outmane]

if i recall well, DAO had a nice way to treat paragon/renegade attitude (tho it wasnt named such) with the dwarf story arc. Helping "renegade" Belhen lead to a strong but brutal dwarf empire openminded about human while helping "paragon" Harrowmont lead to a weak but nicer empire closed off on itself.

To me it appears normal that if you are rude to squaddies or kill NPCs, you loose interaction with them. But it also seems unfair that renegades dont get an equivalent something else... like being able to interact with the human council would have been nice. 

Game mechanics often make it so that paragon decisions, because they usually go toward maintaining instead of distroying, will open on more options. For exemple, if you decide to preserve the genophage cure with the help of Mordin (a paragon choice) there are good chances you get to use it in either a paragon or renegade way (helping the Krogan because you feel sorry for them vs. securing their help as reaper fodder). If you simply distroy the cure (renegade choice), well that story arc pretty much ends there. One of my humancentrist renegade Sheps did save the cure so he could use it at his adventage later. Its seemed to him as too powerful a weapon to pass (just like the collector base). He did get penalized by a few paragon points but he still intends to use it in a very renegage way.

Overall, i dont think the game is made to have the players choose ALL renegade or ALL paragon outcomes. It makes very shallow characters: hypocrite paragonShep who is everyones best friend and ****** renegadeShep who cares for nothing.

[Seboist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

(all this is obviously my opinion)

Rachni.
"I feel this person is dangerous, I get rid of them."
"I trust this person, let them go."

How it should've played out in ME2.
Renegade: Add a scientist from the facility that mentions you killing the Rachni, maybe a Krogan on Tuchanka saying he heard what you did from Wrex / Wreav and respects you for it.
Paragon: The Rachni Queen cameo remains unchanged, maybe a few Krogan are bitter toward you for hearing about what you did to the Rachni Queen.

How it played out in ME2:
Renegade: Absolutely nothing.
Paragon: Rachni turns out are good and will help you.

How it should play out in ME3.
Renegade: Less allies from the (now extinct) Rachni, Krogan are potentially easier to recruit / deal with.
Paragon: More allies from the Rachni, Krogan are potentially harder to deal with.

Council.
"Let the Council die, what have they done for us?" + "We have to take Sovereign down, no matter the cost."
"Let's save the Council!"

Note: Council choice was mostly handled well, though it should have expanded more instead of leaving stuff out.

How it should've played in ME2.
Renegade: Aliens still hate Shepard and humans (that was realistic), we meet the new Council (human council or new alien council) and the idea that everybody is planning to go at war with each other is more developed (instead of put on the wayside).
Paragon: The Paragon side of things worked relatively well, it demonstrated everything it should show.

How it played in ME2.
Renegade: Everybody hates you, Council doesn't want to talk with you and the war thing is suggested but put to the wayside.
Paragon: Everybody loves you, Council talks with you again, you always have the option to become a Council Spectre again, you still get messages of aliens preparing.

How it should play out in ME3.
Renegade: The individual fleets are stronger, more prepared to handle the Reapers due to them preparing for the war against the humans. Council fleet is harder to recruit as a result.
Paragon: The fleets are weaker, having not prepared for anything. The Council fleet is easier to recruit due to the respect for Shepard.

[cut off]

There you go, consequences for both sides for the two examples that are often brought up. No "morality" gets cheated, everybody has benefits and consequences for their decisions. It shouldn't be a question of happy ending vs bad ending, it should be an actual choice between what's presented before you.

I'd be able to handle the "deal with the consequences of your actions" if both sides had consequences, until that happens though stop saying it.

I'd probably do "how it'll probably play out in ME3." though I'd prefer to remain optomistic and hope the magazines are just incorrect about everything they've said so far about our decisions.

There should have been more bitterness from humans over sacrificing Alliance warships to save the Council like from a relative of someone who died in one of them. All we get is Khalisah bickering at Shepard and she does that regardless of what he does.

Modifié par Seboist, 17 mai 2011 - 11:07 .

[Aumata]

outmane wrote...

if i recall well, DAO had a nice way to treat paragon/renegade attitude (tho it wasnt named such) with the dwarf story arc. Helping "renegade" Belhen lead to a strong but brutal dwarf empire openminded about human while helping "paragon" Harrowmont lead to a weak but nicer empire closed off on itself.

To me it appears normal that if you are rude to squaddies or kill NPCs, you loose interaction with them. But it also seems unfair that renegades dont get an equivalent something else... like being able to interact with the human council would have been nice. 

Game mechanics often make it so that paragon decisions, because they usually go toward maintaining instead of distroying, will open on more options. For exemple, if you decide to preserve the genophage cure with the help of Mordin (a paragon choice) there are good chances you get to use it in either a paragon or renegade way (helping the Krogan because you feel sorry for them vs. securing their help as reaper fodder). If you simply distroy the cure (renegade choice), well that story arc pretty much ends there. One of my humancentrist renegade Sheps did save the cure so he could use it at his adventage later. Its seemed to him as too powerful a weapon to pass (just like the collector base). He did get penalized by a few paragon points but he still intends to use it in a very renegage way.

Overall, i dont think the game is made to have the players choose ALL renegade or ALL paragon outcomes. It makes very shallow characters: hypocrite paragonShep who is everyones best friend and ****** renegadeShep who cares for nothing.

Are you saying the game doesn't have story archs for renegade choices?  Because that would be stupid decsion on Bioware part.

[InvincibleHero]

Nimrodell wrote...

When do renegades let terrorists kill a group of hostages? I guess if you stretched your idea of terrorists Zaeeds mission could be what you claim but even then you are stopping a greater threat, at the cost of some collateral damage. Though, then again, that was Zaeed killing them, not the Suns so...

Wonder if you would agree with that estimation if you were that 'some collateral damage'? lol Just imagine, you're trapped there and roasting while Shepard is passing by you and saying - sorry, dude, nothing personal, you're collateral damage, but that's an honorable profession to be... We're off to kill Vido thus hypothetically saving many lives! I am a prophet, my little collateral damage, and your sacrifice won't be forgotten. I'll mention you as 'some collateral damage' that bended for Zaeed! lol

Tis good to see that there are prophets walking amongst us plain mortals still. And tis good that people are actually so easy with sacrificing lives for what they perceive as greater good (tis like in Bugs Bunny Abominable Snowman episode - Duffy Duck says nicely there: Poor old Bugs. But, anyway you look at it, it's better HE should suffer. After all, it was me or him, and obviously it couldn't be me. It's a simple matter of logic. I'm not like other people, I can't stand pain, it hurts me. Bless the human kind.) lol (Sorry, I can't stop laughing.)

It is unrealistic they can always save everyone and leave no one behind. Even Superman doesn't win them all. Would you try to save three trapped people if there was bomb ticking down that you could not reach and had just enough time to maybe get to safety? With paragon Shep time would dilate and he'd save everyone and survive. The rengade thinks mission to save galaxy more important and regretably or callously  (renegades aren't all the same) leaves them. Maybe they would die of injuries already sustained anyway.

Would you pargon attempt save if you lose an arm and suffer negative shooting affects the rest of the game or lose one of your sqaud instead? It does happen and many heroic police, soldiers, and firemen die in the line of duty or leave a part behind. Strawman argument I know, because BW would never do such a thing.

[88mphSlayer]

it all really stems from choice in wrpg's and divergent content structure that gamers expect out of games nowadays

there is an expectation that having multiple paths means something beyond simply being superficial to the story

that renegades feel they get the shaft is mostly due to the renegade path really being the paragon path with cut content and joke dialogue and little else

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 18 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[Seboist]

88mphSlayer wrote...

it all really stems from choice in wrpg's and divergent content structure that gamers expect out of games nowadays

there is an expectation that having multiple paths means something beyond simply being superficial to the story

that renegades feel they get the shaft is mostly due to the renegade path really being the paragon path with cut content and joke dialogue and little else

Yep and there are still people clinging to the false hope that ME3 will finally bring real choice and outcome despite signs of railroading like CB decision being made irrelevant and Cerberus fighting Shepard no matter what.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Rens are jerks to the rest of the galaxy I don't get why they get their feelings hurt when no one likes them. It kind of comes with the territory unless you find friends who are just as ren as you are.

[Seboist]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

Rens are jerks to the rest of the galaxy I don't get why they get their feelings hurt when no one likes them. It kind of comes with the territory unless you find friends who are just as ren as you are.

Great way to show you've read absolutely nothing on this thread.

[Ahglock]

alx119 wrote...

Uh huh, then why did you kill the council? I mean, if a HUMAN made the decission of let them rot, the consequences are clear, aliens ain't gonna like humanity. What do you want, them to say YAY HUMANS? 

They lose people, that's the thing. For a council that was underestimating them. It's harder in ME1, where they were ****s towards you and pretty much humanity (though this is also debatable), it's easier to let them die than to rescue them, put yourself on the skin of Shepard, and if you underestimate human lives, then dude... wth.
I know it's a videogame and stuff, but still it's supposed to put you on the skin of the commander, If you can't see the moral repercusion of "leaving the council to die" then again, wth.

And you lacking to see the logic on it is quite painful as well, if you give incentives for punching people, or shooting people... do you think that's a 10+ game? I mean, If I was a father, I wouldn't like my kids to learn that "shooting people gives me good stuff".

Actually everyone hating humanity made very little sense to me.  Lets say the UN actually ran things, they were the worlds government.  Now lets say Dr Evil launches a series of WMD's meanwhile the UN is trying to escape on a 747.  Dr Evil sends a fighter plane out to take out the UN plane, most armies are engaged with Dr Evil forces and are not stopping the WMDs.  The Chinese have jets in the air and are coming in to help.  The UN plane asks for assistance, but the Chinese ignore their please and focus on the WMDs.  Now next year the chinese have more influence on the UN council, but every country that was previously on the council is still there.  Do you really think everyone would be saying screw those damn chinese, how dare they save my life when the UN plane was in danger?  They like totally made sure they died so they would have more power.  Or do you think people like that would be dismiiseed as conspiracy nutjobs?  

As for the incentives to punch people etc.  Well the primary parts of discussion are big plot points, acts of random violence don't have much of an impact one way or the other in ME2.  But I will point out virtually every person I know who is really successful is a douche, maybe a manipulative douche, maybe a argoant douche, maybe a violent douche but a douche.  The recent allegations about the head of the IMF is a on point example, and if true I some how doubt it was his first time being a douche.  

[Ieldra]

Nyoka wrote...
@Ieldra2, I was writing my opinion to your last post, commenting on the examples we have been talking about, but after some paragraphs I realized all my comments were not really about each specific situation but about what I think being renegade means, what constitutes a bad outcome for a renegade, stuff like that. I'll only say then that we see the renegade way in different ways, and that if I take for a minute your vision of what a renegade is, then I understand and support your points.

Thank you.

One of the problems is that I don't really think in terms of "Renegade Shepard" or "Paragon Shepard", but of "Shepard making this or that Renegade decision". Almost all of my Shepards are of mixed "alignment" because they have no overriding ideology representing what Renegade and Paragon is designed to be in the game. So "Renegade player feels cheated" doesn't describe the situation for me rather than "I feel cheated for taking any Renegade decision", regardless of whether that Shepard's general leaning is Renegade or Paragon.

So yes, a Renegade can be played as a pro-human sociopath and authoritarian assh*le, and perhaps it is not possible to get to 100% Renegade with at least a little of that. But that's beside the point. I'm concerned with those Renegade decisions which could reasonably be said to be pragmatic, *and* which have consequences affecting the story. I don't care about the others because they're just for showcasing your Shepard's general personality.

@Dave of Canada:
I agree with all the examples in the list and I'd like to add a set of consequences I'd like to see for the Collector base decision. I'm taking into account that ME3's ending will possibly be more layered and be affected by more variables than ME2's:

(1) Destroy the base: lacking any functional knowledge of the Reapers' capabilities, you will be unable to get the ending with the least number of casualties (1 additional species homeworld will be destroyed before the war is done), but you will be able to get the best ending for a politically co-operative galaxy after the end. The rebuilding after the war will be fast and efficient as a result. Knowledge of Reaper technology still exists (there's no avoiding that after the war) but their most powerful secrets have died with them.

(2) Keep the base: humanity - whichever organization will represent it at the end - will have access to some of the more powerful secrets of Reaper technology. You will be unable to the get the best ending for a politically co-operative galaxy because the other species don't trust a humanity with access to Reaper technology, and the rebuilding after the war may proceed more slowly because of it, but depending on your other decisions, you might have saved the day with the least number of casualties. How the presence of Reaper technology will affect the future is left an open question.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 mai 2011 - 10:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That kind of spoils the roleplaying, don't you think? 

In any case, for me the issue is the missed content far more than anything else. Sure, it peeves me that every risk a Paragon Shepard takes never bites them in the ass (and I think it's bad story telling), but I wouldn't them robbed of content either.

If Renegades got the same amount of import exclusive content as Paragons then you could argue that both are equal, just that each sets a different tone for the universe.

And this is the problem with Renegade whiners.

Retarded assumptions after retarded assumptions.

It's like if something doesn't have a negative effect immediately, like the nano second they press the button, people'll start saying: Whaaaa, nothing bad happens to them if they do that, while I get this if I take that other action.

Some people are so ****ing stupid, they don't deserve the content they're pointlessly asking for. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 mai 2011 - 11:14 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I like your style, but it's too bad you don't have the wit or intelligence to back it up.

No, it's just that I don't see why I should waste it on this thread, when the problems and the solutions are so obvious.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Oh, is that it huh? It seems like you don't think any thread is worth wasting your vast intellect on. Some day, I hope you find a worthy thread. It wll make for a fascinating read, I'm sure.

I already have.

Too bad that you can't read it.

[AdmiralCheez]

Says the pot to the kettle.