380 réponses à ce sujet

[Labrev]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

(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).

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?

3.) Those "benefits" are trivial at best. Like I said before, there were no more positive repercussions in saving the Council than letting them die, other than that one turian not hating you. And there is one negative, you can get on their bad side if you tell them to F-off. That can't happen to you with the human council.  And, just because your squad doesn't support your CB decision doesn't mean it will turn out completely badly. I released the rachni-queen in ME1 and got no votes of confidence for it. I had no idea how it would turn out either.

4.) I'm finished here, but again, your understanding of positives is the issue. Again, the real focus of the game is the mission at hand. Sure, you don't get a cameo for killing Shiala, the rachni queen, and the Council, but there are still potential benefits to be had there (no indoctrinated rachni or husks to deal with later, stronger Alliance, with an arms-race against the turians meaning more overall firepower...) in ME3. So if you are playing for more content and goodies, then you're doing it wrong. End of convo.

For the record, yes, the crew all changing their minds on the CB thing is stupid. I could see some changing their minds like Garrus and Mordin, but for Grunt and Legion to change their opinion makes no sense. They could have thrown something in for Zaeed too depending on what you did.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Seboist wrote...

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).

You've been killing heretic Geth for the past 2 games... what makes it immoral now?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

3.) Those "benefits" are trivial at best. Like I said before, there were no more positive repercussions in saving the Council than letting them die, other than that one turian not hating you. And there is one negative, you can get on their bad side if you tell them to F-off. That can't happen to you with the human council.  And, just because your squad doesn't support your CB decision doesn't mean it will turn out completely badly. I released the rachni-queen in ME1 and got no votes of confidence for it. I had no idea how it would turn out either.

4.) I'm finished here, but again, your understanding of positives is the issue. Again, the real focus of the game is the mission at hand. Sure, you don't get a cameo for killing Shiala, the rachni queen, and the Council, but there are still potential benefits to be had there (no indoctrinated rachni or husks to deal with later, stronger Alliance, with an arms-race against the turians meaning more overall firepower...) in ME3. So if you are playing for more content and goodies, then you're doing it wrong. End of convo.

For the record, yes, the crew all changing their minds on the CB thing is stupid. I could see some changing their minds like Garrus and Mordin, but for Grunt and Legion to change their opinion makes no sense. They could have thrown something in for Zaeed too depending on what you did.

3.  Again though, belittling Paragon "benefits" and "extras" don't make them any less of a "benefit" or "extra" compared to Renegade decisions.  And there's easily more positive repercussions for the Paragon choice.  Humanity is celebrated, less lives were lost, you get to physically see the Council you decided on, the Council grants you their blessing (even in the face of treason), Anderson's there to talk to and supports you regardless... so Anderson is not a Renegade "bonus."  I don't remember there being any riots breaking out from a Paragon choice either.  Turians also increase reparations given to humans.  Those are all positive benefits to making the Paragon choice that Renegades see absolutely nothing on.

4.  Those "potential benefits" are not presented or focused on at any time, in any positive way in either game.  All Renegade choosers can do is "speculate" a positive for the future, while the Paragon choice can actually list them As Well as speculate for the future.  At no point in either of the 2 games does a Renegade choice demonstrate itself to be more favorable than the Paragon one... it never happened... in either game.  There's not even an "on the bright side" look at the Renegade decisions.... nothing positive about the choice is presented to the player... let alone there being less content/cameos.  If they want to be true to their claim that they want to reward players for the choices they make, and Paragon truly isn't the "right choice" button, then it's Bioware that's doing it wrong.

Thank you for atleast acknowledging the Paragon favoritism on the Collector Base.  That was an all-time low for Bioware in this regard. 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 04:02 .

[Moiaussi]

I guess the issue, Gogeta, is that you are prejudging the results and trumping up minor differences as 'evidence.'

Talking with Anderson isn't the renegade bonus. The bonus is extra dialogue with him that pretty much mirrors that Paragons get with the Council, but without the insults. You can say that the Council blesses paragons in the face of treason and you can feel that way personally, but that doesn't mean that paragons interpret the scene the same way you do.

We just saved them and they aren't willing to give us the benefit of the doubt before accusing us of treason. You even use a very loose definition of treason to defend the Council.

The squad acting like idiots if you save the base doesn't mean that saving the base will be the wrong answer either. The precident we have for not killing or not blowing things up is the 'extra content' you keep railing against paragons getting, so based on what we have seen so far, those saving the base will likely get at least an extra cameo or something.

That doesn't mean that is how it will play out, just pointing out that if you are citing things as precidents you have to apply that in all cases, not just the ones that support your arguement.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

I guess the issue, Gogeta, is that you are prejudging the results and trumping up minor differences as 'evidence.'

Talking with Anderson isn't the renegade bonus. The bonus is extra dialogue with him that pretty much mirrors that Paragons get with the Council, but without the insults. You can say that the Council blesses paragons in the face of treason and you can feel that way personally, but that doesn't mean that paragons interpret the scene the same way you do.

We just saved them and they aren't willing to give us the benefit of the doubt before accusing us of treason. You even use a very loose definition of treason to defend the Council.

The squad acting like idiots if you save the base doesn't mean that saving the base will be the wrong answer either. The precident we have for not killing or not blowing things up is the 'extra content' you keep railing against paragons getting, so based on what we have seen so far, those saving the base will likely get at least an extra cameo or something.

That doesn't mean that is how it will play out, just pointing out that if you are citing things as precidents you have to apply that in all cases, not just the ones that support your arguement.

I'm a Paragon and I interpreted it that way.  Rules are rules, jurisdiction is jurisdiction, treason is treason... that's not an insult.  I'm using the exact definition of treason that they do.  The Council defined what was treason (working with an "avowed" enemy of the Council).  "Avowed" is something acknowledged openly, boldly, bluntly, and without shame or declared assuredly.

And we talked about this before, the Council gave you the benefit of the doubt before rightly accusing you of treason.  They heard you out first.  See the scene again if you don't believe me.  And even further, they said what you were doing was treason.. they never personally called you a traitor.  And yes, your action was treason.  Stealing the Normandy in Mass Effect 1 to go after Sovereign was also illegal.  The ends justified the means... but it wasn't any less illegal because of it.

Regarding the CB, the squad acting like idiots is a bias toward the Paragon side.  We're talking about Paragon Favoritism and that's the most dramatic example of it.  I'm not (and never have) made a claim regarding what absolutely will be in Mass Effect 3 (outside of what's been said or shown to be there)... because we don't know.  But we do know that the past two games favored the Paragon choice.

The real reason I'm even bringing this point up has nothing to do with Paragons and Renegades specifically... but the fact that I don't want to know that there's a "best outcome" button... that if I hit the blue button, I'll have my cake and eat it too...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 04:35 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I'm a Paragon and I interpreted it that way.  Rules are rules, jurisdiction is jurisdiction, treason is treason... that's not an insult.  I'm using the exact definition of treason that they do.  The Council defined what was treason (working with an "avowed" enemy of the Council).  "Avowed" is something acknowledged openly, boldly, bluntly, and without shame or declared assuredly.

And we talked about this before, the Council gave you the benefit of the doubt before rightly accusing you of treason.  They heard you out first.  See the scene again if you don't believe me.  And even further, they said what you were doing was treason.. they never personally called you a traitor.  And yes, your action was treason.  Stealing the Normandy in Mass Effect 1 to go after Sovereign was also illegal.  The ends justified the means... but it wasn't any less illegal because of it.

Regarding the CB, the squad acting like idiots is a bias toward the Paragon side.  We're talking about Paragon Favoritism and that's the most dramatic example of it.  I'm not (and never have) made a claim regarding what absolutely will be in Mass Effect 3 (outside of what's been said or shown to be there)... because we don't know.  But we do know that the past two games favored the Paragon choice.

The real reason I'm even bringing this point up has nothing to do with Paragons and Renegades specifically... but the fact that I don't want to know that there's a "best outcome" button... that if I hit the blue button, I'll have my cake and eat it too...

So then prisoner exchanges are acts of treason, since they involve negotiating with an enemy? Not to mention peace talks, hostage negotiations, etc, etc, etc.....

The Council doesn't really give you the benefit of the doubt. Anderson set up the meeting. They have already stripped your status and are meeting with you reluctantly.

Not sure why you think it is relevant since there were no reprocussions and they sent you back out to active duty immediately after, but in ME1, you don't actually steal the Normandy. Udina is an ambassador, not law enforcement. It isn't clear if he even checked with home before locking the Normandy down. He certainly didn't check with the Alliance military and it seems unlikely that an ambassador would have any authority over the military. Udina also seems to think that as an ambassador he outranks a councellor.

If you are pro paragon, then how is it that you are making all these strong statements about what the renegades consider a benefit or good result? If you don't follow that philosophy, what makes you such an expert on it?

And saying you are committing treason is calling you a traitor. You are just trolling when you say otherwise.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

So then prisoner exchanges are acts of treason, since they involve negotiating with an enemy? Not to mention peace talks, hostage negotiations, etc, etc, etc.....

The Council doesn't really give you the benefit of the doubt. Anderson set up the meeting. They have already stripped your status and are meeting with you reluctantly.

Not sure why you think it is relevant since there were no reprocussions and they sent you back out to active duty immediately after, but in ME1, you don't actually steal the Normandy. Udina is an ambassador, not law enforcement. It isn't clear if he even checked with home before locking the Normandy down. He certainly didn't check with the Alliance military and it seems unlikely that an ambassador would have any authority over the military. Udina also seems to think that as an ambassador he outranks a councellor.

If you are pro paragon, then how is it that you are making all these strong statements about what the renegades consider a benefit or good result? If you don't follow that philosophy, what makes you such an expert on it?

And saying you are committing treason is calling you a traitor. You are just trolling when you say otherwise.

If you do it without the Council's permission, yes.  The Council makes the rules, working with their avowed enemy is treason... doesn't mean it isn't justifiable.  Besides, the Council can forgive it or make an exception... which is what they did.

As far as the Council not hearing you out, listen to what the Councilors say when the meeting starts... tell me what they say.

Lol and no you can do something that's technically treason without being a traitor (like "Boss" in MGS3)... seriously, that's why the Council wishes you well at the end.  If you were really a traitor, they would not have let you leave and continue to work with the enemy... not without a fight (especially considering the heightened Citadel security).

They wouldn't say "Best of luck traitor" lol.  And they most certainly wouldn't have offered you your Spectre status and fries with that.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 05:32 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If you do it without the Council's permission, yes.  The Council makes the rules, working with their avowed enemy is treason... doesn't mean it isn't justifiable.  Besides, the Council can forgive it or make an exception... which is what they did.

As far as the Council not hearing you out, listen to what the Councilors say when the meeting starts... tell me what they say.

Lol and no you can do something that's technically treason without being a traitor (like "Boss" in MGS3)... seriously, that's why the Council wishes you well at the end.  If you were really a traitor, they would not have let you leave and continue to work with the enemy... not without a fight (especially considering the heightened Citadel security).

They wouldn't say "Best of luck traitor" lol.  And they most certainly wouldn't have offered you your Spectre status and fries with that.

Based on that, they could convict you of being a traitor for a bad hairstyle. If it isn't justifiable, you are making my point.

The Council 'hear you out' but have already prejudged you. They keep focusing on Reapers and ignoring the fact that human colonies are disappearing. They don't want to know what you have learned, they don't ask if there is any intel on Cerberus you could give them, they 'hear you out', and promptly dismiss you. They mock reinstate you, giving you authority that you can only use where it isn't respected and where they figure you won't be taken seriously.

As for 'technically' treason, again, treason isn't defined as working with an enemy. It is defined as working against your own country or government. There is a major difference, and it is why things like prisoner exchanges aren't treason.

You keep playing fast an loose with definitions.

[Rip504]

I will prove the Renegade sacrifices the "now" for the later "greater good".
Direct Renegade quote. ": Drink it! Or I will blind you one eye at a time.:"

Yes this is the Renegade thinking beyond the here and now. The Renegade would enjoy and have a wonderful time blinding the Batarian "one eye at a time",but wouldn't get the great benefit of watching the Batarian drink it's own poison. Sacrificing the "here and now" for the "Greater Good."
Awesome.!.

I thought the Renegade was suppose to be a bad*ss character. But that can't be true with all of these Renegades crying on these forums. I just don't get it...

[Ultai]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Honestly I don't think it needs to be balanced. Even only one or two Paragon decisions turning out for the worse per game would more than keep me satisifed. The point isn't that either side is right half the time, but that making a choice is never easy. Paragon or Renegade you should always hesitate a little, asking yourself "Can I live with the consequences?"

www.youtube.com/watch

"Many decisions lie ahead, none of them easy."  Psssh, not the case for the paragon, just auto-blue/top right to victory!  We were just messing around with that, we wouldn't want you to actually think about your choice. 

That said, binary morality systems never do shades of grey any justice, and Par/ren is a big offender of this.

Modifié par Ultai, 13 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[Rip504]

Ultai wrote...
www.youtube.com/watch

"Many decisions lie ahead, none of them easy."  Psssh, not the case for the paragon, just auto-blue/top right to victory!  We were just messing around with that, we wouldn't want you to actually think about your choice. 

That said, binary morality systems never do shades of grey any justice, and Par/ren is a big offender of this.

The choice is not about picking "red or blue". It's about picking the choice you think is best based off of reasons x or y. If you pick only the "blue",because you assume "blue" will always have the best outcome. That is your hollow opinion. Some people may still feel as having No Rachni & No Alien council is the better option. Some Shepards weigh the Reason X vs Reason Y and then make a choice based off of those reasons. It shouldn't be about the outcome,but rather the decision making process. If you pick "blue" because it is right,that is you option & opinion so feel free to do so.

In a RPG it is about picking the choice you most agree with. Not hoping for the best outcome. Now disagreeing with those outcomes(IMO) is still on you,as it is Bioware's game and they do get to decide the outcome.(Does Not make you wrong for disagreeing.) If you did x or y and expected x or y to happen. Face it, you assumed something and happened to be wrong. (It happens to Paragons & Renegades alike.)Just as you may be right now,about outcomes and effects in ME3.

"Many decisions lie ahead,none of them easy." Is very true in my opinion. I didn't save the Rachni Queen & Alien Council based off of the outcomes in ME2,no I had other reasons, just as you did. Complaining about outcomes we will not truly understand until ME3 is kinda pointless in my opinion,but does raise awareness with Bioware,that their Renegade fans are crying and need a pat on the back. So rest assured, Bioware will "swoop" down to your rescue.

Modifié par Rip504, 13 juin 2011 - 08:13 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Based on that, they could convict you of being a traitor for a bad hairstyle. If it isn't justifiable, you are making my point.

The Council 'hear you out' but have already prejudged you. They keep focusing on Reapers and ignoring the fact that human colonies are disappearing. They don't want to know what you have learned, they don't ask if there is any intel on Cerberus you could give them, they 'hear you out', and promptly dismiss you. They mock reinstate you, giving you authority that you can only use where it isn't respected and where they figure you won't be taken seriously.

As for 'technically' treason, again, treason isn't defined as working with an enemy. It is defined as working against your own country or government. There is a major difference, and it is why things like prisoner exchanges aren't treason.

You keep playing fast an loose with definitions.

Lol, no.  If it were part of a hairstyle club where the rules stipluated you couldn't work sport the afro club's hair style... and you show up with an afro... you're committing treason (even if it's Bob Ross appreciation day, lol).

They didn't "keep focusing on it."  They already told you they can't go out to the Terminus Systems.  Working with Cerberus is still Treason.  Once a point is discussed they move on.  It's not mock reinstatement, you have full reinstatement, lol...  You're going into an area outside of their jurisdiction WITH the Council's authority and support... how you twist that as being bad is beyond me... when they could've cut all ties with you.

Again, Cerberus is an "avowed enemy of the Council" and to the Council, working with such an enemy is treason.  Treason is defined as a "betrayal of trust" as well as a "violation of allegiance."  You're the only one playing 'fast an losse with definitions'...

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

I will prove the Renegade sacrifices the "now" for the later "greater good".
Direct Renegade quote. ": Drink it! Or I will blind you one eye at a time.:"

Yes this is the Renegade thinking beyond the here and now. The Renegade would enjoy and have a wonderful time blinding the Batarian "one eye at a time",but wouldn't get the great benefit of watching the Batarian drink it's own poison. Sacrificing the "here and now" for the "Greater Good."
Awesome.!.

I thought the Renegade was suppose to be a bad*ss character. But that can't be true with all of these Renegades crying on these forums. I just don't get it...

Not sure if you're serious... but still totally missing the point regardless... take some time to hear out what's being said.  If you move away from your own preconcieved notions and look at what's actually presented in the games, I'm sure you would get it.  Many do.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...
The choice is not about picking "red or blue". It's about picking the choice you think is best based off of reasons x or y.

 
Not if you know it means nothing because the end results will wrap around the blue button regardless.  This has been a proven opinion.... one instance in particular I've heard no one deny.

Complaining about outcomes we will not truly understand until ME3 is kinda pointless in my opinion,but does raise awareness with Bioware,that their Renegade fans are crying and need a pat on the back. So rest assured, Bioware will "swoop" down to your rescue.

Still missing the point..  The contents presented in ME1 and ME2 are exclusive to themselves.  Even if ME3 presents actual benefits to picking the Renegade side (equal content wouldn't hurt either), it won't change the fact that the first 2 games didn't have them. 

Ultai wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Honestly I don't think it needs to be balanced. Even only one or two Paragon decisions turning out for the worse per game would more than keep me satisifed. The point isn't that either side is right half the time, but that making a choice is never easy. Paragon or Renegade you should always hesitate a little, asking yourself "Can I live with the consequences?"

www.youtube.com/watch

"Many decisions lie ahead, none of them easy."  Psssh, not the case for the paragon, just auto-blue/top right to victory!  We were just messing around with that, we wouldn't want you to actually think about your choice. 

That said, binary morality systems never do shades of grey any justice, and Par/ren is a big offender of this.

Agreed, and not just victory, the "best" victory (ie:  least amount of lives lost, most content/cameos, and most postiive events for making the choice presented in the actual game).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 08:33 .

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...




They didn't "keep focusing on it."  They already told you they can't go out to the Terminus Systems.  Working with Cerberus is still Treason.  Once a point is discussed they move on.  It's not mock reinstatement, you have full reinstatement, lol...  You're going into an area outside of their jurisdiction WITH the Council's authority and support... how you twist that as being bad is beyond me... when they could've cut all ties with you.

Again, Cerberus is an "avowed enemy of the Council" and to the Council, working with such an enemy is treason.  Treason is defined as a "betrayal of trust" as well as a "violation of allegiance."  You're the only one playing 'fast an losse with definitions'...

This is a random thought,I am now curious about. How is it looked at by the rest of the galaxy,that Shepard is working with Cerberus("avowed enemy of the Council."& Council Space) and the Council has reinstated Shepard's Spectre status. So now the Council has given Shepard full Spectre "authority" and are fully "supporting" a Spectre working with Cerberus. A offence worthy of Treason,grants full support?

Modifié par Rip504, 13 juin 2011 - 08:45 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

They're trusting Shepard even though they don't personally believe him... likely because they're learning from their mistakes in the first game. Definitely positive growth from how they used to behave.

As far as the rest of the galaxy goes, he's still mostly considered dead at this point... and his relationship with Cerberus is not public knowledge.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 juin 2011 - 08:27 .

[Rip504]

Mr.GoGeta34, You are missing my point. I disagree with you. I do not consider Paragon to have the better "outcome" or "benefit" over Renegades in ME1 & 2. I feel as if they are pretty well balanced. Cameos do not equal better outcomes.(IMO) Maybe more desirable for some,but better is up for debate. The amount of content in both playthroughs is very similar. (IMO)

I am playing yet another ME2 Renegade playthrough where I am only going to have 2 crew live during the SM . Last night I beat Omega (Garrus & Mordin) ,I ran right by the spot where Helena Blake would have been standing,and was happy she was not in my ME2. Also I am not interested in anything concerning Helena Blake. She's dead,because she was a non-factor in ME1.( I feel similar to this, concerning the Council, Rachni & other major plot events Throughout the 2 games.)

If anything Renegades could have had a few more opportunities to have Renegade dialog & interrupt options, considering there will be less random cameos. Let me push someone off the edge on Illium. But I have always agreed with more content. Can't argue with adding to the game.(IMO)

When I play as a Renegade I feel the weight of my decisions from ME1,just as much as I do when I play as a Paragon.

Modifié par Rip504, 13 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lol, no.  If it were part of a hairstyle club where the rules stipluated you couldn't work sport the afro club's hair style... and you show up with an afro... you're committing treason (even if it's Bob Ross appreciation day, lol).

They didn't "keep focusing on it."  They already told you they can't go out to the Terminus Systems.  Working with Cerberus is still Treason.  Once a point is discussed they move on.  It's not mock reinstatement, you have full reinstatement, lol...  You're going into an area outside of their jurisdiction WITH the Council's authority and support... how you twist that as being bad is beyond me... when they could've cut all ties with you.

Again, Cerberus is an "avowed enemy of the Council" and to the Council, working with such an enemy is treason.  Treason is defined as a "betrayal of trust" as well as a "violation of allegiance."  You're the only one playing 'fast an losse with definitions'...

Prisoner exchanges are pretty much always with 'avowed enemies.' So is dealing with informants. So is a lot of espionage. They are assuming that just because Shepard is working with an enemy that trust has been betrayed or violated. Shepard gave his reasons as 'they are working against the Collectors', namely a common enemy. He said outright that he is working with them to defeat a common enemy, not against the Council.

Going into enemy terrirtory wearing the wrong colours is far more likely to get you killed than to be a show of anything. If Shepard even tried to mention that 'support' in Terminus space he is more likely to be harmed than 'supported.' It is not a favour. They want him gone, but can't just shoot him or arrest him because he is too popular.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

Mr.GoGeta34, You are missing my point. I disagree with you. I do not consider Paragon to have the better "outcome" or "benefit" over Renegades in ME1 & 2. I feel as if they are pretty well balanced. Cameos do not equal better outcomes.(IMO) Maybe more desirable for some,but better is up for debate. The amount of content in both playthroughs is very similar. (IMO)

I am playing yet another ME2 Renegade playthrough where I am only going to have 2 crew live during the SM . Last night I beat Omega (Garrus & Mordin) ,I ran right by the spot where Helena Blake would have been standing,and was happy she was not in my ME2. Also I am not interested in anything concerning Helena Blake. She's dead,because she was a non-factor in ME1.( I feel similar to this, concerning the Council, Rachni & other major plot events Throughout the 2 games.)

If anything Renegades could have had a few more opportunities to have Renegade dialog & interrupt options, considering there will be less random cameos. Let me push someone off the edge on Illium. But I have always agreed with more content. Can't argue with adding to the game.(IMO)

When I play as a Renegade I feel the weight of my decisions from ME1,just as much as I do when I play as a Paragon.

I understand what you're saying and have understood what you're saying.  You don't feel that the Paragon's benefits make it the "better" outcome for the hero that is Shepard(be it a Paragon or Renegade Shepard).  Lets make it easier then... Outisde of succeed/fail, what would you consider a "better" outcome over another outcome?

For the record, I have never said or even thought of asking for a resurrection of someone that was killed by a Renegade... what I wanted was to see the repercussions of that action presented in-game like it is for Paragon players.

I'm glad that you atleast agree with more content btw... there should be atleast enough content to make either choice even.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 05:28 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Prisoner exchanges are pretty much always with 'avowed enemies.' So is dealing with informants. So is a lot of espionage. They are assuming that just because Shepard is working with an enemy that trust has been betrayed or violated. Shepard gave his reasons as 'they are working against the Collectors', namely a common enemy. He said outright that he is working with them to defeat a common enemy, not against the Council.

Going into enemy terrirtory wearing the wrong colours is far more likely to get you killed than to be a show of anything. If Shepard even tried to mention that 'support' in Terminus space he is more likely to be harmed than 'supported.' It is not a favour. They want him gone, but can't just shoot him or arrest him because he is too popular.

I hope you understand this, but if it doesn't come from the top, it's treason.  Shepard is not "the top" (the Council is) but he did it anyway (making it treason).  If a prisoner exchange with an avowed enemy happened without being sanctioned, then yes, that individual could be brought up on charges of treason for releasing a high-value enemy prisoner without authorization into the hands of an 'avowed enemy.'

That said...that action can be justified and forgiven (which it was... by the Council) and while you continued working with their avowed enemy, they still decided to grant you your Spectre status back.  The whole "Shepard's too popular" bit is a moot point because the galaxy still thinks he's dead at this point.  And not only that... but dead for 2 years.  If they wanted to kill him there and then, they could have and Shepard would've just publically stayed dead.  He's alive because they trust Shepard (they could've ambushed him, imprisoned him, etc.).  They support him, not to get rid of him, but because they really mean it.  They trust Shepard.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 04:55 .

[tjzsf]

Rip504 wrote...
In a RPG it is about picking the choice you most agree with. Not hoping for the best outcome. Now disagreeing with those outcomes(IMO) is still on you,as it is Bioware's game and they do get to decide the outcome.(Does Not make you wrong for disagreeing.) If you did x or y and expected x or y to happen. Face it, you assumed something and happened to be wrong. (It happens to Paragons & Renegades alike.)Just as you may be right now,about outcomes and effects in ME3.

False.
With the exception of Elnora (who shouldn't really count because she's an interrupt) and Bring Down the Sky, when has picking Paragon resulted in something being unfixably wrong?

Dialog tree choices only
Interrupts don't count, because those are free morality points that you don't really have to stop and think for
BDtS IMO is the one part where they truly did paragon/renegade right - do you save the hostages and allow the terrorist to run and fight another day, or end the terrorist right there at the cost of the hostages? Of course, if it turns out you get another chance to kill Balak in ME3 I will be disappointed....

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I hope you understand this, but if it doesn't come from the top, it's treason.  Shepard is not "the top" (the Council is) but he did it anyway (making it treason).  If a prisoner exchange with an avowed enemy happened without being sanctioned, then yes, that individual could be brought up on charges of treason for releasing a high-value enemy prisoner without authorization into the hands of an 'avowed enemy.'

That said...that action can be justified and forgiven (which it was... by the Council) and while you continued working with their avowed enemy, they still decided to grant you your Spectre status back.  The whole "Shepard's too popular" bit is a moot point because the galaxy still thinks he's dead at this point.  And not only that... but dead for 2 years.  If they wanted to kill him there and then, they could have and Shepard would've just publically stayed dead.  He's alive because they trust Shepard (they could've ambushed him, imprisoned him, etc.).  They support him, not to get rid of him, but because they really mean it.  They trust Shepard.

So if a Cerberus vessel had joined in the battle at the Citadel firing only on Geth ships, the entire Council and Alliance fleets would have had to disengage or be guilty of treason?

That is the equivalent of what was happening.

They didn't even request a formal report before telling Shepard his actions were treasonous. The closest thing to an informal report they had to go on was 'Cerberus are taking the Collector threat seriously.' Note the Council didn't ask for a report on what Shepard knew about the Collector threat either.

Yes, of course they can define his actions as treason. My whole point is that they are out of line doing so. That was my point about hairstyles. They could declare Shepard's hair style treasonous, simply because they can. Their ability to do so doesn't justify their doing so.

And the galaxy can't be too convinced Shepard is dead, since noone seemed to act strangely about him showing up at the Citadel alive. The Council didn't even ask 'how did you survive?' Bailey considered the death proclaimation a mere technicality. Most importantly, in the renegade discussion, Anderson tells Shepard that Shepard is too popular for them to block reinstatement of his Spectre status. If the Council was saved, it is unlikely he would be less popular, so in the paragon situation, it would be even harder politically for them to block it. They don't tell Shepard that, of course, because they want to act in control, but that doesn't mean they are on that point.

Note that doing on camera interviews and answering reporters' emails likewise tend to dispel rumours he is dead.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

False.
With the exception of Elnora (who shouldn't really count because she's an interrupt) and Bring Down the Sky, when has picking Paragon resulted in something being unfixably wrong?

And when has renegade anything resulted in something unfixably wrong?

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

False.
With the exception of Elnora (who shouldn't really count because she's an interrupt) and Bring Down the Sky, when has picking Paragon resulted in something being unfixably wrong?

And when has renegade anything resulted in something unfixably wrong?

Note that since we are talking about results, the necessary criteria is the end result of the decision, not how much we know at the time.
Also note that this is renegade (lower right), not intimidate (lower left/red text), difference being latter is "succeed with flying colors".

Kill [insert ally race here]
Keep Collector base (we know Cerberus is going to be an enemy, doing so only makes them stronger)
Kill Gianna Parasini - don't get that subquest
Kill Council - everyone hates you and you don't get to see the supposed reward, which is a human dominated council.
Expose Tali's father - she hates you forever and you balkanize the migrant fleet.

There. I've fulfilled my end. Your response?