380 réponses à ce sujet

[Rip504]

Mr GoGeta34 wrote... 
A number of outcomes are possible,but that doesn't mean Bioware will actually do them.

Thank you. Yes Sovereign winning is a possible outcome Bioware never made. So as it could/will never happen it is safe to say the Galaxy was safe. The choice was about sacrificing human lives to save the DA or not. Exactly. Sovereign could have won,but never did. It wasn't a possible outcome given the games parameters.
No the Galaxy is safe,Sovereign dies,and either the council is alive or not.(No matter what. End games looks similiar to this.)

Your agrument O Sovereign could have done this and that,no it couln't have,because Bioware did not allow it as a possible outcome. As I stated before 1 save,2 loads,and 15 mins of gameplay discovered this.
(I agree thats taking it out of the box,changing your context,and metagaming.Still true)

Mr GoGeta34 wrote...
The point is that's how the game is giving you the choice to weigh.

Yes the game is implying hey we can save the DA at the cost of human lives. Your squadmate is saying hey you could let them die and save human lives. To fight Sovereign. O sh*t either way you are still going to fight Sovereign. So yes I agree the game is telling what the "cost" actually is. Human or Alien life. Not the entire safety of the galaxy. That is absurd.
Also ( I may have minunderstood what you ment but.) I'm pretty sure Joker and the Normandy fly right by the DA,if you sacrifice the council. And are a main factor in saving the DA.  Joker was there.


Also I agree with this. 
 

Moiaussi wrote...
"You also continue to misprepresent the choice. It isn't immediately save
the DA vs immediately concentrate on Sovereign. It is immediately save
the DA vs stay in reserve and concentrate on Sovereign later," 

Mr GoGeta34 wrote...
It's like saying the Paragon reasoning for saving the Council is because
Shepard saw the Council as his eternal master and galactic life was not
worth living if those 3 people died.

Also on a side note. Implying that Bioware wrote a story where the Hero Paragon risked the life of every sentient being in the galaxy,to save 3 individuals,because "it was the right thing to do". Is kinda ignorant IMO. I do not know any Paragon who would agree with this. Saving 3 individuals at the risk of all life, is the right thing to do. No it isn't. 
Also the statement is simply wrong. DA has over a 10,000 member crew. It is the biggest ship in Citadel space. It is save to assume there are more then 3 individuals on it. Saving DA was on the way to fight Sovereign.
This is Shepard's chance to let the council die and have humanity take over.(Renegade Dialog Backs this up.)
All through out the game, a Renegade Shepard can have bad relations with the council. This is Shepard's chance to equal out the playing feild as Shepard sees fit. Or even simple revenge.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

What do you guys make of Casey's quote?

"It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end."

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

Thank you. Yes Sovereign winning is a possible outcome Bioware never made. So as it could/will never happen it is safe to say the Galaxy was safe. The choice was about sacrificing human lives to save the DA or not. Exactly. Sovereign could have won,but never did. It wasn't a possible outcome given the games parameters.
No the Galaxy is safe,Sovereign dies,and either the council is alive or not.(No matter what. End games looks similiar to this.)

Thank you for posting this way, much easier and I look forward to having further discussions on this with you.

In hindsight, it's safe to say the Galaxy was safe.  But Bioware doesn't always do this... The Arrival DLC, if time runs out, the Reapers kill everything (could've easily happened in ME1).  In ME2, if you try to "experience" Morinth, you die.  Don't complete the suicide mission correctly... and you die.  Death is possible in the Mass Effect universe... Bioware either does it or they don't do it.

Your agrument O Sovereign could have done this and that,no it couln't have,because Bioware did not allow it as a possible outcome. As I stated before 1 save,2 loads,and 15 mins of gameplay discovered this.
(I agree thats taking it out of the box,changing your context,and metagaming.Still true)

The only reason to complain about something that wasn't done is for there to be something they didn't do.

Yes the game is implying hey we can save the DA at the cost of human lives. Your squadmate is saying hey you could let them die and save human lives. To fight Sovereign. O sh*t either way you are still going to fight Sovereign. So yes I agree the game is telling what the "cost" actually is. Human or Alien life. Not the entire safety of the galaxy. That is absurd.
Also ( I may have minunderstood what you ment but.) I'm pretty sure Joker and the Normandy fly right by the DA,if you sacrifice the council. And are a main factor in saving the DA.  Joker was there.

"This is bigger than Humanity.  Sovereign is a threat to every species in the Galaxy."  Humanity, in this case, is the Galaxy's only chance for survival.  Do you potentially waste it trying to save the Council or do you try to stop Sovereign "before he regains control of the station!"?

P.S.  Those quotes are from the actual game.

Also I agree with this. 
 
Moiaussi wrote...

"You also continue to misprepresent the choice. It isn't immediately save
the DA vs immediately concentrate on Sovereign. It is immediately save
the DA vs stay in reserve and concentrate on Sovereign later," 

Cutscene proves this wrong.  They're moving toward Sovereign the entire time.

Also on a side note. Implying that Bioware wrote a story where the Hero Paragon risked the life of every sentient being in the galaxy,to save 3 individuals,because "it was the right thing to do". Is kinda ignorant IMO. I do not know any Paragon who would agree with this. Saving 3 individuals at the risk of all life, is the right thing to do. No it isn't. 
Also the statement is simply wrong. DA has over a 10,000 member crew. It is the biggest ship in Citadel space. It is save to assume there are more then 3 individuals on it. Saving DA was on the way to fight Sovereign.
This is Shepard's chance to let the council die and have humanity take over.(Renegade Dialog Backs this up.)
All through out the game, a Renegade Shepard can have bad relations with the council. This is Shepard's chance to equal out the playing feild as Shepard sees fit. Or even simple revenge.

It's the short-term, morally right thing to do as a hero.  The Council needs help so you help them.  You don't sacrifice the Council just to justify the end... which is the defeat of Sovereign.  

All you know is that the Council is on board.  You have no idea how many of your reinforcements will die trying to save it, how many individuals ejected already from the DA, etc..  You also know that the DA is heavily damaged and its drives are offline.  The DA being "on the way to fight Sovereign" was "fortunate/convenient" (**cough favoritism cough**) but unknown to the player at the time of making the choice.  Renegades may dislike the Council and may even have an emotional investment in their decision, but their decision is still in the face of galactic annihilation.  The "Concentrate on Sovereign" option doesn't have any ill-will toward the Council at all... nor does it care about human vs aliens.... it's about stopping Sovereign and ensuring the safety of all life in the galaxy... "even if it means sacrificing the Council."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 juin 2011 - 11:50 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

One additional tidbit I should mention. The battle of the Geth against the Citadel forces are happening all around the station... not just where the DA is.

[Labrev]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

(1)
  
Sovereign is a sentient being, sending a henchmen to take care of something doesn't mean it can't be done by the boss himself.  As a matter of fact, the rush is to try and stop Sovereign "before he regains control of the station!"  That's what they say in the actual game... and story-wise, it could have happened.

Saren was never the real threat... Saren was just a puppet for Sovereign.

(2)

But anyways, if they assigned complete failure to certain decisions, then nobody would choose them and the game may as well not be an RPG but a linear story.

Like with Morinth?


(3)

Is it saving the council? Because I posted in-depth myself about how there was 0 impact of either decision on the game.
Is it saving Wrex? Because that could be solved with a high paragon OR renegade score.
Is it saving the rachni-queen? Because that also has 0 impact on the game thus far.
Is it saving Shiala? Because that resulted in nothing other than a cameo of that grossly overrated character

Belittling Paragon extras don't make them any less extra.  Don't miss the point.


(4)

First of all, "consequences" has no bearing on which decisions will bring about the best outcome.  Secondly, "speculation" was never what the complaint of Paragon favoritism stood on.  It's based on everything that's happened for the last 2 (actually released) games.  And lastly, do not develop the notion that I'm suggesting Paragons suffer "nothing."  The point is that thusfar, the best outcome required always hitting the blue button... no other choice resulted in less deaths, more content, or more favor and validation.  This removes the point of making a tough decision for the best outcome in the story.


(5)

Try to give the benefit of the doubt though. It's understandable why they didn't figure in a cameo in place of the non-existant individuals. It's possible that they didn't expect that renegades would be so delicate the players that consciously killed certain characters would have an issue with not getting their own special content.

The issue is that this manner of favoritism has spanded across 2 of their planned 3 games.  At some point, you can have concerns.  For me, I like "not knowing" what the best solution is before I even hear the problem... but their current trend of Paragon favoritism prevents this from happening.

(1) He had plenty of time to do it before the Alliance showed up. Why didn't he?

(2) Not sure what you mean by Morinth. Players have the choice to recruit her with a high enough persuation score.

(3) I'm not belittling the extras, I'm just showing how your conclusion that "paragon = best outcome" is flawed. As of now, those are the only impacts we have seen from the paragon solutions to ME1's major decisions, and to date, they have shown nothing to be more advantageous than those of renegades'.

(4) Often times, it is very clear what the consequences of certain decisions will be. Less deaths and more content should not be what you should be basing your decision off of. If you want content that you think you're missing, do a new career and pick the opposite to everything you've done.

(5) That's where you're wrong. Paragon and Renegade options for the decisions you are given are just different means to the same end. As for one being more advantaegous to the other, see (3).

[Dracotamer]

I want to be able to choose ANY option I feel my Shepard would make based on the situation.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

(1) He had plenty of time to do it before the Alliance showed up. Why didn't he?

(2) Not sure what you mean by Morinth. Players have the choice to recruit her with a high enough persuation score.

(3) I'm not belittling the extras, I'm just showing how your conclusion that "paragon = best outcome" is flawed. As of now, those are the only impacts we have seen from the paragon solutions to ME1's major decisions, and to date, they have shown nothing to be more advantageous than those of renegades'.

(4) Often times, it is very clear what the consequences of certain decisions will be. Less deaths and more content should not be what you should be basing your decision off of. If you want content that you think you're missing, do a new career and pick the opposite to everything you've done.

(5) That's where you're wrong. Paragon and Renegade options for the decisions you are given are just different means to the same end. As for one being more advantaegous to the other, see (3).

1.  Sovereign's whim. 

2.  If you "sleep" with Morinth, she'll kill you (in the game... seriously, she will)... game over, lol.

3.  When I role-play, I don't view more lives saved, cameos, and positive validation as "cosmetic extras" that (while Paragons have it and Renegades don't) isn't picking favorites...  An outcome is considered the "best" outcome if you get more benefits out of it than the other choices.  Paragons have constantly gotten "more" out of their choice... based on what's in the actual game.  The way situations present themselves after the choice even favors a Paragon choice.

With the Council, they have their cake and eat it too... no negative repercussions presented in the game over the Renegade choice (can only speculate them... and even then, not for the games in question, but for the final unreleased game).

With the CB, your ENTIRE squad endorses the Paragon decision... even those that were against it at the time the decision was made (whereas the Renegade choice is 100% negative).  Not Paragon favoritism?  What do you call it?

4.  That totally misses the point of why I'm debating this issue... the point is that a Renegade choice should provide the same amount of content as a Paragon choice... and should (atleast some of the time) provide an outcome superior to the Paragon choice.  The game favors Paragon decisions and focuses on the positives of the Paragon decision far more than they do the Renegade ones (if they focus on a positive aspect of a Renegade decision at all).

The end goal of this is that I shouldn't "know" that in order to get the best common sense outcome... (more lives saved, less sacrificed to do it, more praise garnered)  I shouldn't have to go to the Blue Button every time.  There should be other options that yield better results some times... otherwise, what's the point of the choice?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 04:54 .

[Seboist]

The whole squad response to the CB decision is absurd. It's as if the game is openly mocking the player for picking the Renegade choice.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I agree, even some of the people debating here against the notion of Paragon favoritism agree with how absurd that is.

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I agree, even some of the people debating here against the notion of Paragon favoritism agree with how absurd that is.

I'd like to know what kind of drugs the writers were on when they wrote that. Why couldn't we get a single squadmate saying "Good job with keeping the base Shepard, with it we'll be better equipped to fight the Reapers and save lives." or on the flipside if he destroyed it " What were you thinking Shepard?! Your moral conscious better be worth throwing away valuable tech and intel!!"?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

---double post---

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 05:38 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Would be nice to see some mixed opinions... show "something" that's not favoring a Paragon decision. But it's been (and has always been) one-sided that way.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 05:39 .

[tjzsf]

You people keep saying "wait until ME3" like it's actually relevant to the question of "is it a good decision" when decisions can only be judged by what is known at the time, not by their outcomes.
Funny.

[Ieldra]

tjzsf wrote...
You people keep saying "wait until ME3" like it's actually relevant to the question of "is it a good decision" when decisions can only be judged by what is known at the time, not by their outcomes.
Funny.

What is known at the time should be the basis of your decision, yes. But that's not the problem here. The problem is the eventual outcome, mostly due to the factors you didn't know at the time. If these almost always present better consequences for the Paragon than the Renegade, then it's a clear case of Paragon favoritism. While yes, some of the eventual consequences of major decisions aren't known yet, the genre-savvy player will notice the tendency of Paragon favoritism event there. Or do you really think the Rachni will turn out hostile after promising friendship in ME2? Do you really think leaving the Council to die in ME1 will not make your task considerably harder in ME3, while saving them will make it easier? With Cerberus as the enemy, there's an indication that having kept the Collector base will make our task harder as well, and we have no idea yet if that will be balanced out by any benefits.

But it's even worse: Bioware went out of their way to make the Paragon decision the "feel-good" decision even where it shouldn't be: in Tali's LM. You're withholding the truth about a war criminal from the government affected for the sake of that war criminal's daughter and that's the Paragon decision? Really, which kind of twisted mind came up with the reasoning for that?

So I say threads like these are very necessary. While the same topic keeps coming up often, and everything has been said about the subject several times, it's good that they do. It's telling Bioware that this may be an important issue. We need some balance in the Paragon and Renegade consequences come ME3.

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But it's even worse: Bioware went out of their way to make the Paragon decision the "feel-good" decision even where it shouldn't be: in Tali's LM. You're withholding the truth about a war criminal from the government affected for the sake of that war criminal's daughter and that's the Paragon decision? Really, which kind of twisted mind came up with the reasoning for that?

It's a Paragon decision because it has a positive outcome. The only reason the Renegade path there is Renegade is because it winds up breaking apart the fleet. No other reason what-so-ever. I'm convinced that Bioware looks at what the consequences will be and THEN decides whether something is Paragon or Renegade.

That's certainly true of Legion's loyalty mission when in actuality both decisions are "Renegade". There's nothing Paragon about exterminating the Heretic Geth or robbing them of their free will with the rewrite(Garrus correctly says it borders on indoctrination).

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Though I should add that Bioware's switching of Shepard's apparent morality in that mission worked perfectly for me. While I did agree that it was no big deal to rewrite the geth, that they were "just machines", I also didn't like the idea of making Legion's geth stronger. I don't want to make ANY geth stronger. So naturally my Shepard and I blew them up.

I hope they allow us to make a Renegade take on certain Paragon decisions like a Pro-Human Shepard who killed the Council and kept the Collector base using the Rachni,Krogans and Geth(with rewritten Heretics) as allies against the other Council races.

[Ieldra]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Though I should add that Bioware's switching of Shepard's apparent morality in that mission worked perfectly for me. While I did agree that it was no big deal to rewrite the geth, that they were "just machines", I also didn't like the idea of making Legion's geth stronger. I don't want to make ANY geth stronger. So naturally my Shepard and I blew them up.

I hope they allow us to make a Renegade take on certain Paragon decisions like a Pro-Human Shepard who killed the Council and kept the Collector base using the Rachni,Krogans and Geth(with rewritten Heretics) as allies against the other Council races.

IMO it's one of the main flaws of the Renegade concept that it appears to be tied to certain political goals. Renegade should be a style of achieving your goals, not set goals of your own. Also just because something is not Paragon, it doesn't mean that it's Renegade. The two paths do not complement each other. But Bioware didn't appear to see that. It appears to me they didn't have a clear concept of Renegade, they just threw everything in that didn't agree with their concept of Paragon as the feel-good decisions.

[Ieldra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

But it's even worse: Bioware went out of their way to make the Paragon decision the "feel-good" decision even where it shouldn't be: in Tali's LM. You're withholding the truth about a war criminal from the government affected for the sake of that war criminal's daughter and that's the Paragon decision? Really, which kind of twisted mind came up with the reasoning for that?

It's a Paragon decision because it has a positive outcome. The only reason the Renegade path there is Renegade is because it winds up breaking apart the fleet. No other reason what-so-ever. I'm convinced that Bioware looks at what the consequences will be and THEN decides whether something is Paragon or Renegade.

Yeah it certainly appears that way.

Hey Bioware, you've always said you wanted to make both paths valid ways to play the game. But you can't have your cake and eat it: IF Renegade is to be a valid way to achieve your goals, THEN Paragons cannot always have their perfect outcome. IF Paragons always have their perfect outcome, THEN there is no reason whatsoever to make a Renegade decision except if you want to be a sociopath. IF there are no benefits from Renegade decsions, then there is no reason to accept the negative consequences that usually accompany them. IF there is never any downside for Paragon decisions, THEN there is no reason not to have your cake and eat it and take their final outcome along with their obvious immediate benefits.

For Renegade decisions to be pragmatic, they actually need to result in visible benefits over the results of Paragon decisions in about half of all cases.

Basic logic, really.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2011 - 08:43 .

[Seboist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Though I should add that Bioware's switching of Shepard's apparent morality in that mission worked perfectly for me. While I did agree that it was no big deal to rewrite the geth, that they were "just machines", I also didn't like the idea of making Legion's geth stronger. I don't want to make ANY geth stronger. So naturally my Shepard and I blew them up.

I hope they allow us to make a Renegade take on certain Paragon decisions like a Pro-Human Shepard who killed the Council and kept the Collector base using the Rachni,Krogans and Geth(with rewritten Heretics) as allies against the other Council races.

IMO it's one of the main flaws of the Renegade concept that it appears to be tied to certain political goals. Renegade should be a style of achieving your goals, not set goals of your own. Also just because something is not Paragon, it doesn't mean that it's Renegade. The two paths do not complement each other. But Bioware didn't appear to see that. It appears to me they didn't have a clear concept of Renegade, they just threw everything in that didn't agree with their concept of Paragon as the feel-good decisions.

If it were up to me the whole Paragon/Renegade and Charm/Intimidate systems would be abolished altogether and players would be given free to reign to do whatever they wanted.

[khevan]

I honestly think (hope?) that some of the major decisions in ME1&2 have both positive and negative effects in ME3.

Example: Rachni Queen: Saving the queen gives you a potential ally, yes. But it also gives you a potential for less cooperation from the Krogan or Turians when it's time to build your armada or whatever the goal of ME3 is. It could also lead to hordes of indoctrinated rachni-husk things that you hafta fight groundside. A benefit and a hinderance all in one.

The flipside of the above scenario is just as it sounds. You don't gain the benefit of Rachni allies, but you don't suffer any political b.s. in regards to alliance building, and you don't hafta fight rachni-husks.

I'm really hoping that BioWare does something like the above for at least some of the "major" choices.

Modifié par khevan, 13 juin 2011 - 09:08 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Awesome, more people understand (or are atleast speaking out about it).  Hopefully what I quoted Casey saying was interpreted correctly.

Ieldra2 wrote...

But it's even worse: Bioware went out of their way to make the Paragon decision the "feel-good" decision even where it shouldn't be: in Tali's LM. You're withholding the truth about a war criminal from the government affected for the sake of that war criminal's daughter and that's the Paragon decision? Really, which kind of twisted mind came up with the reasoning for that?

The reason it's a Paragon choice is because it's the short-term moral "right" of the time.  "Don't make the poor girl cry now..."