380 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

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?

My response is that none of those have gone 'unfixably wrong.'

The Rachnii have told us they will be allies, and there is good reason to believe them, but they have not actually shown up yet on our side. They may not make it in time for whatever reason, or they may end up indoctrinated and on the other side, or they might show up in insignificant numbers to matter, or any other scenario in which they are of no help in the war. We may also end up at war against them again thousands of years in the future in some war that is even harder or more impossible to win than the war against the Reapers.

We have no clue how much the collector base will matter to either side. None.

Not getting to see a human dominated council isn't 'unfixably wrong.' Trust can be built back up, and it is debatable to what extent it is wrong at all.

Gianna, you can handle most of that as paragon or renegade, your choice. If you tip Anoleis in the end though, you are the one risking 'letting the criminal go.' I am not sure what about the situation counts as 'broken' though, in that it doesn't affect the overall mission at all. Gianna ends up giving her life to do your job of stopping Anoleis, though, so how is that 'unfixably wrong?'

You can beat the Collectors with or without Tali surviving, and 'Madam X' ends up finding the evidence anyway, so the Quarians likely end up balkanized anyway. They might end up less so with it all in the open. Again, we know the results of the immediate mission (victory possible, so definately fixable), and don't know which decision is best or worst for the Quarians and thus ME3. With Xen getting the evidence privately on her own, it could easily end up that the Quarians try the Morning War again on their own and again fail, costing you both Quarians and Geth. That leaves just Tali's immediate loyalty. And near as I can tell, an unloyal Tali can survive if enough else is done right. So how is that 'unfiixable?'

Back to you, oh vowel challenged one.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 14 juin 2011 - 06:38 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
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.

 
Cerberus joining the battle at the Citadel has nothing to do with Treason.  It just means that an enemy is fighting your enemy.  How you got the idea that the entire Council and Alliance would stop what they're doing to "just" concentrate on Cerberus's appearance is beyond me.  Cerberus appearing doesn't remove tactical reasoning and prioritizing threats.  You may want to rephrase your example.

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.

It doesn't matter what his reasoning was... he joined forces (albiet temporarily) with an avowed enemy of the Council without the Council's permission.  That is technically treason no matter how you look at it... and that truly is a difficult position for the Council to be in (because they understand your reasoning)... as they themselves say.  So now they either uphold the law or make an exception for you.

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.

They said what it was (treason), then immediately after, they said that while they can't give you a public acknowledgement (given your ties with Cerberus) they will give you their provisional support.  They won't work with Cerberus, but they are allowing you to... because they trust you.  ie:  You've been forgiven for what was technically a teasonous action.  They weren't wrong in saying that.

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.

The Council was more concerned that because you were alive... what exactly you'd been doing for the last 2 years... especially since you return working with Cerberus... their avowed enemy.  Shepard's a Spectre and most (if not all) military men who've been on covert missions understand (heck, even those who see movies on covert missions understand) that sometimes deaths are faked or wrongly listed.

And Anderson never says Shepard's too popular.  He says that Shepard's status was never revolked... because he was just presumed dead.  He also says that Shepard's a hero to humanity and the Council knows the danger of discounting human opinion. 

ie.  The humans were right about Saren, so they (specifically humanity's champion) may be right here too.. not letting them act could result in another preventable assault on the Citadel.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 07:50 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
 
Cerberus joining the battle at the Citadel has nothing to do with Treason.  It just means that an enemy is fighting your enemy.  How you got the idea that the entire Council and Alliance would stop what they're doing to "just" concentrate on Cerberus's appearance is beyond me.  Cerberus appearing doesn't remove tactical reasoning and prioritizing threats.  You may want to rephrase your example.

And yet working with that enemy against the greater enemy is 'treason?' Coordinating fire with any such Cerberus ship is 'working with the enemy.' Getting useful intel from Cerberus is 'working with the enemy.' Stop equivocating. 

It doesn't matter what his reasoning was... he joined forces (albiet temporarily) with an avowed enemy of the Council without the Council's permission.  That is technically treason no matter how you look at it... and that truly is a difficult position for the Council to be in (because they understand your reasoning)... as they themselves say.  So now they either uphold the law or make an exception for you.

Spectres normally have discretion. Shepard didn't have to ask the Council anything in advance in ME1. He wasn't charged with treason if he freed the Rachni Queen, for example, nor if he asks the Alliance fleet to stand by rather than save the Council (which is far closer to actual treason than working with Cerberus against the Collectors).

It isn't treason technical or otherwise. Treason is working against the government, not merely working with an enemy of the government.

They said what it was (treason), then immediately after, they said that while they can't give you a public acknowledgement (given your ties with Cerberus) they will give you their provisional support.  They won't work with Cerberus, but they are allowing you to... because they trust you.  ie:  You've been forgiven for what was technically a treasonous action.  They weren't wrong in saying that.

What you are saying is that since they are defining treason, it was treasonous. And they are wrong about public support anyway. You landed on the Citadel, went entirely unmolested, met with the Council, and left without any guard or security detail assigned to you. That would look like support to pretty much anyone, and before you say that is the Council showing their trust, that is the same for both paragon and renegade Council decisions.

They are meeting with a 'Cerberus representative' and taking no action against them. In the pulic eye, that counts for many as public support. If anything, their comment regarding not being able to support Shepard translates into 'we can't help you defend human colonies because Cerberus is defending human colonies.' It is what I was saying about them using an innane definition of 'treason.'

That might make sense if they are indoctrinated to at least some degree, mind, and in that case, letting them die in ME1 will almost certainly end up the better decision.

The Council was more concerned that because you were alive... what exactly you'd been doing for the last 2 years... especially since you return working with Cerberus... their avowed enemy.  Shepard's a Spectre and most (if not all) military men who've been on covert missions understand (heck, even those who see movies on covert missions understand) that sometimes deaths are faked or wrongly listed.

And Anderson never says Shepard's too popular.  He says that Shepard's status was never revolked... because he was just presumed dead.  He also says that Shepard's a hero to humanity and the Council knows the danger of discounting human opinion. 

ie.  The humans were right about Saren, so they (specifically humanity's champion) may be right here too.. not letting them act could result in another preventable assault on the Citadel.

That is my point. Noone seems especially surprised at Shepard turning up alive. Re read your bolded words. How precisely is being a hero to humanity not a popularity issue? And if it was 'humans were right about Saren, so', why does Anderson have so little pull with a surviving Council? You are so far out on a limb here that you may as well be trying to argue against  the law of gravity.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And yet working with that enemy against the greater enemy is 'treason?' Coordinating fire with any such Cerberus ship is 'working with the enemy.' Getting useful intel from Cerberus is 'working with the enemy.' Stop equivocating.

lol, working with the enemy in and of itself isn't treason.  Working with the enemy without your side's consent IS treason.  Getting what you feel to be useful intel from Cerberus by working with them is indeed "working with the enemy" and if done without the Council's consent IS treason.
 

Spectres normally have discretion. Shepard didn't have to ask the Council anything in advance in ME1. He wasn't charged with treason if he freed the Rachni Queen, for example, nor if he asks the Alliance fleet to stand by rather than save the Council (which is far closer to actual treason than working with Cerberus against the Collectors).

It isn't treason technical or otherwise. Treason is working against the government, not merely working with an enemy of the government.

Their descretion is with respect to intergalactic law, not the Council's laws.  Saren was a traitor for this reason, if the Council had given Saren the go-ahead to work with Sovereign (and permitted his killing of Nihlus due to circumstance) then it wouldn't have been treason and his Spectre status would not have been revolked.

The entire notion of Treason is dependent on whether the Council approves of actions against "their own" or with "their enemy."

At some point you should understand this.

What you are saying is that since they are defining treason, it was treasonous. And they are wrong about public support anyway. You landed on the Citadel, went entirely unmolested, met with the Council, and left without any guard or security detail assigned to you. That would look like support to pretty much anyone, and before you say that is the Council showing their trust, that is the same for both paragon and renegade Council decisions.

Your existence at this point was a rumor... as were your ties with Cerberus (for most people).  Like I said before, you get no heat from security before or after your meeting because the Council trusts you and say that they do or Anderson covers for you (he's the only one there outside of Udina... and Udina had no idea you were there).

The Renegade Council decision has the Council not tell you or do "anything" which is neither their trust or support.  If they trusted Shepard, why aren't they there?  Sorry, but them trusting Shepard is just not the case.

Anderson does all the workarounds for you.  The Renegade Council don't want you to have your Spectre status back... otherwise Anderson would win some popularity contests. 

They are meeting with a 'Cerberus representative' and taking no action against them. In the pulic eye, that counts for many as public support. If anything, their comment regarding not being able to support Shepard translates into 'we can't help you defend human colonies because Cerberus is defending human colonies.' It is what I was saying about them using an innane definition of 'treason.'

Working with Cerberus is a rumor at this point,  The Council (because they aren't there) have no idea when you show up there,  You're still dead in the public eye,  And how many times do I need to say that the Terminus Systems is outside of Council jurisdiction?  lol

That might make sense if they are indoctrinated to at least some degree, mind, and in that case, letting them die in ME1 will almost certainly end up the better decision.

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, but nothing is presented in the games to show any Renegade advantage over a paragon choice.  While Paragons have advantages shown.

That is my point. Noone seems especially surprised at Shepard turning up alive. Re read your bolded words. How precisely is being a hero to humanity not a popularity issue? And if it was 'humans were right about Saren, so', why does Anderson have so little pull with a surviving Council? You are so far out on a limb here that you may as well be trying to argue against  the law of gravity.

It's not a popularity issue because, as I stated, as a hero you represent 'Humanity' and consequently 'Humanity's opinion.'  Not to mention you've been dead for 2 years...  Anderson already explains why they don't listen to him (they've convinced themselves that the Reapers don't exist and outside of Geth, threats are abstract... there's nothing else for them to focus on).  

Your arguement is the only one out of left-field here because the fact is that Anderson said it (not me).  If the Council knows the danger of discounting their opinion, then they probably do.  He wouldn't say it if it weren't true.  You can't get around that... because it's in the actual game... just like gravity is in the actual universe.  You're the only one arguing against it. 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 09:27 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

lol, working with the enemy in and of itself isn't treason.  Working with the enemy without your side's consent IS treason.  Getting what you feel to be useful intel from Cerberus by working with them is indeed "working with the enemy" and if done without the Council's consent IS treason.

As a Spectre, Shepard normally is considered to have 'his side's consent.' They don't ask what he has done with Cerberus or review any intel. Spectres are not obligated to report everything they do in advance. They are obligated to do so after the fact, but the Council normally gets a full report before they are judged on their actions (per ME1).

They are changing the rules on Shepard retroactively and convicting him without trial. Again, there is nothing different between their accusation and accusing Shepard of treason over hair style or any other arbitrary criteria.
 

Their descretion is with respect to intergalactic law, not the Council's laws.  Saren was a traitor for this reason, if the Council had given Saren the go-ahead to work with Sovereign (and permitted his killing of Nihlus due to circumstance) then it wouldn't have been treason and his Spectre status would not have been revolked.

The entire notion of Treason is dependent on whether the Council approves of actions against "their own" or with "their enemy."

At some point you should understand this.

Saren wasn't convicted of working with Sovereign. The Council never acknowledged the Reaper's existance. He was convicted of working directly against the Council. Saren had even been flying around in an unauthroized dreadnaught in violation of the treaty with noone questioning it.

And the context here is whether the Council were doing Shepard any favours. You seem to be arguing that the Council can arbitrarily decide someone guilty of treason without needing to know details, yet figure their arbitarily accusing Shepard of Treason then not acting on it is some sort of favour?

If a police officer says "I can arrest you because I have the authority to do so and hold you without charge for 24 hours, but I won't cause I like you' are they doing you a favour or just misusing their power?

Your existence at this point was a rumor... as were your ties with Cerberus (for most people).  Like I said before, you get no heat from security before or after your meeting because the Council trusts you and say that they do or Anderson covers for you (he's the only one there outside of Udina... and Udina had no idea you were there).

The Renegade Council decision has the Council not tell you or do "anything" which is neither their trust or support.  If they trusted Shepard, why aren't they there?  Sorry, but them trusting Shepard is just not the case.

Anderson does all the workarounds for you.  The Renegade Council don't want you to have your Spectre status back... otherwise Anderson would win some popularity contests.

Again you make my point. Why would the Council not have to deal with Shepard's popularity if he saved them? Wouldn't he be even more popular and seem even more trustworthy?

The Council doesn't know the exact time you arrive there (or if you'll even arrive there).  And how many times do I need to say that the Terminus Systems is outside of Council jurisdiction?  lol

They can't have C-Sec let them know if Shepard shows up? They certainly seemed ready enough for the meeting.

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, but nothing is presented in the games to show any Renegade advantage over a paragon choice.  While Paragons have advantages shown.

And the games are not yet done. You have trumped up paragon results based on a specific mindset. I acknowledge you feel that way

It's not a popularity issue because, as I stated, as a hero you represent 'Humanity' and consequently 'Humanity's opinion.'  Not to mention you've been dead for 2 years...  Anderson already explains why they don't listen to him (they've convinced themselves that the Reapers don't exist and outside of Geth, threats are abstract... there's nothing else for them to focus on).  

Your arguement is the only one out of left-field here because the fact is that Anderson said it (not me).  If the Council knows the danger of discounting their opinion, then they probably do.  He wouldn't say it if it weren't true.  You can't get around that... because it's in the actual game... just like gravity is in the actual universe.  You're the only one arguing against it. 

Being presumed dead for 2 years doesn't mean you aren't seen as a hero nor that you are no longer popular nor that there are no political issues from that popularity. Anderson does not have that level of popularity. He isn't as politically dangerous to the Council do he doesn't have that level of pull for other matters.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 14 juin 2011 - 09:58 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
Saren wasn't convicted of working with Sovereign. The Council never acknowledged the Reaper's existance. He was convicted of working directly against the Council. Saren had even been flying around in an unauthroized dreadnaught in violation of the treaty with noone questioning it.

And they never asked him "why" he was doing it either.. it was treason.. because it doesn't matter what his reasons were (however justified he felt his actions were).  There you go.

And the context here is whether the Council were doing Shepard any favours. You seem to be arguing that the Council can arbitrarily decide someone guilty of treason without needing to know details, yet figure their arbitarily accusing Shepard of Treason then not acting on it is some sort of favour?

If a police officer says "I can arrest you because I have the authority to do so and hold you without charge for 24 hours, but I won't cause I like you' are they doing you a favour or just misusing their power?

Knowing that the Council is okay with what you're doing and wish you well is only a benefit.  You already know they can't go where you're going... so... what's the problem?

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

And they never asked him "why" he was doing it either.. it was treason.. because it doesn't matter what his reasons were (however justified he felt his actions were).  There you go.

Knowing that the Council is okay with what you're doing and wish you well is only a benefit.  You already know they can't go where you're going... so... what's the problem?

I could punch you in the nose, but I won't. Instead I'll give you back the tin star I took away from you when I didn't know where you were and ask you to play with it as far away from me as possible.  Aren't I your best friend evah?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Considering that "as far away from [them] as possible" is exactly where Shepard wants to go... I'm still not seeing the problem here.  And yes:
"I could punch you in the nose... and then have you killed, but instead I wish you well and let you continue doing what would be grounds for your punch and death with a free pass... aren't I your best friend evah?"  I'd say they could definitely make a case for it.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Considering that "as far away from [them] as possible" is exactly where Shepard wants to go... I'm still not seeing the problem here.  And yes:
"I could punch you in the nose... and then have you killed, but instead I wish you well and let you continue doing what would be grounds for your punch and death with a free pass... aren't I your best friend evah?"  I'd say they could definitely make a case for it.

If Shepard was acting against them, you would have a point, but the Collectors are a real immediate threat Reapers or no. The fact that is where Shepard wants to go anyway makes it completely gratuitous.

In the renegade version, Anderson tells you that since you will be going out to the Terminus systems it will be easier for him to support you politically. In the paragon version they haven't gotten (or cared to get) any information from you and don't even want you reporting in, so they don't know at the time you were planning on going back out there anyway.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Anderson says he'll keep the Council and the Alliance off your back regardless.  So even if you make noise in Citadel space, Anderson will work to keep you from getting into any trouble.  For the Paragon run, you're cool with the Council anyway so while nice, it doesn't matter that Anderson does this as much.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 juin 2011 - 10:59 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Anderson says he'll keep the Council and the Alliance off your back regardless.  So even if you make noise in Citadel space, Anderson will work to keep you from getting into any trouble.  For the Paragon run, you're cool with the Council anyway so while nice, it doesn't matter that Anderson does this as much.

The accusation of treason is insulting. The rest of it happens whether you see the Council or not. You are projecting support on them.  You completely dismiss the concept of an alterior motive on their part.

If you were 'cool with the Council' there wouldn't have been such a blatant accusation of treason. They would have said 'your actions may appear treasonous to others, but we trust you.' With the renegade version, Anderson doesn't tell you that you shouldn't use your status in Council space. In the paragon version, they tell you they are reinstating you conditional on your only using it outside of Council space. It is a conditional reinstatement for paragons.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 15 juin 2011 - 06:04 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Anderson says he'll keep the Council and the Alliance off your back regardless.  So even if you make noise in Citadel space, Anderson will work to keep you from getting into any trouble.  For the Paragon run, you're cool with the Council anyway so while nice, it doesn't matter that Anderson does this as much.

The accusation of treason is insulting. The rest of it happens whether you see the Council or not. You are projecting support on them.  You completely dismiss the concept of an alterior motive on their part.

If you were 'cool with the Council' there wouldn't have been such a blatant accusation of treason. They would have said 'your actions may appear treasonous to others, but we trust you.' With the renegade version, Anderson doesn't tell you that you shouldn't use your status in Council space. In the paragon version, they tell you they are reinstating you conditional on your only using it outside of Council space. It is a conditional reinstatement for paragons.

For the record, I meant what I was saying when I used the tongue-out smilie, I put it there to lighten up the moment a point was proven.  lol, I'm not trolling.

You working with Cerberus is insulting... them telling you its implications is natural and true.  I am not projecting support on them... the new Council does not say:
 
"Good luck with your investigation Shepard. We hope for a quick resolution and a quick end to your relationship with Cerberus."

or

"-Spectre reinstatement shows our support of you personally."

Lets throw some other quotes in for good measure... read this one carefully...: 

Shepard:  "I accept your offer.  It's good to have the Council on my side."


The new council actually says... nothing... they're not there... at all...

It's obvious that the only one "projecting" is you.  You've made your Shepard a bit paranoid... "No they've gotta be up to somethin' against me because they said I was working with the enemy without saying anything to them for 2 years... even though I just admitted that I was." 

If they wanted you gone... they wouldn't have done what they did or said what they said.  They don't need to appeal to any popularity to kill someone that's already dead... and been dead for 2 years.  This should be self-evident.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 juin 2011 - 06:52 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

For the record, Shepard asked to work out in the Terminus systems and confirmed you're working with Cerberus. They can't acknowledge you publically while you're doing that, but they want to give you Spectre status anyway because they trust you.

Making your ties with Cerberus public/investigating in the Terminus systems publically on the Council's behalf is a cause for a political crapstorm... and would force the Council to either act against Shepard, weaken in power due to insubordination going unpunished, or spark galactic war for extending beyond their systems.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 15 juin 2011 - 06:27 .

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...
My response is that none of those have gone 'unfixably wrong.'

The Rachnii have told us they will be allies, and there is good reason to believe them, but they have not actually shown up yet on our side. They may not make it in time for whatever reason, or they may end up indoctrinated and on the other side, or they might show up in insignificant numbers to matter, or any other scenario in which they are of no help in the war. We may also end up at war against them again thousands of years in the future in some war that is even harder or more impossible to win than the war against the Reapers.

We have no clue how much the collector base will matter to either side. None.

Not getting to see a human dominated council isn't 'unfixably wrong.' Trust can be built back up, and it is debatable to what extent it is wrong at all.

Gianna, you can handle most of that as paragon or renegade, your choice. If you tip Anoleis in the end though, you are the one risking 'letting the criminal go.' I am not sure what about the situation counts as 'broken' though, in that it doesn't affect the overall mission at all. Gianna ends up giving her life to do your job of stopping Anoleis, though, so how is that 'unfixably wrong?'

You can beat the Collectors with or without Tali surviving, and 'Madam X' ends up finding the evidence anyway, so the Quarians likely end up balkanized anyway. They might end up less so with it all in the open. Again, we know the results of the immediate mission (victory possible, so definately fixable), and don't know which decision is best or worst for the Quarians and thus ME3. With Xen getting the evidence privately on her own, it could easily end up that the Quarians try the Morning War again on their own and again fail, costing you both Quarians and Geth. That leaves just Tali's immediate loyalty. And near as I can tell, an unloyal Tali can survive if enough else is done right. So how is that 'unfiixable?'

Back to you, oh vowel challenged one.

Rachni - if they are of no help, then paragon = renegade. If they are of help, then paragon > renegade. If they are of help, but stuff happens down thousands or years down the line, then paragon still > renegade because it means you stopped the Reapers. Paragon > renegade.

CB - we do have a clue. Cerberus is enemy. Keeping it strenghtens enemy. I do not see what is hard to understand about this.

No human-dominated council - if, at the Council races' weakest point after losing the Councilors and the DA, humanity can still be blocked from dominating the Council, I fail to see the part where it somehow becomes easier. It has nothing to do with trust (even if it did, it still excludes a human-dominated Council because no one trusts humanity after sacrificing the DA), and everything to do with the basic principle of "if you can't get something at its easiest, you sure as hell won't get it when it's h."

Gianna is more minor. The utterly renegade way is to cooperate with Anoleis. It demonstrates that doing so locks you out of content. Regardless of how much you belittle the content, it is still an objective loss of content.

Tali - the difference is you brought issues that would have been kept hidden and possibly put aside until the Reaper threat is over up to the forefront. By exposing her father, you forced them to rush to a concensus on the issue of what to do about the geth, forcing the balkanization. By not doing so, you allow them to still maintain some degree of unity/status quo, where none of the Admirals can do all that much to push their own agenda ahead. How such a situation is unfixable， you ask? YOU try mending a deep schism in a group of people and see how far you get.

Perhaps "unfixably wrong" is not the correct choice of words. Inferior to paragon, however, stands.

And in the end, there still is no decision other than BDtS where you can claim paragon is inferior to renegade.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

Rachni - if they are of no help, then paragon = renegade. If they are of help, then paragon > renegade. If they are of help, but stuff happens down thousands or years down the line, then paragon still > renegade because it means you stopped the Reapers. Paragon > renegade.

If they show up and are immediately indoctrinated over to the other side before they can help at all, then renegade > paragon.

CB - we do have a clue. Cerberus is enemy. Keeping it strenghtens enemy. I do not see what is hard to understand about this.

Keeping it may strengthen an enemy temporarily until we take the base back from them resulting in our being stronger after we do. We might even end up better able to capitalize on any tech from the base in that if Cerberus is working with the Reapers, there is presumably nothing there that the Reapers couldn't provide Cerberus anyway. However if we take the base it could mean getting tech that we wouldn't otherwise get, even if it means extra effort to capture.

Also, it means that the Reapers have a static installation that we can hit. It may function as bait, giving the Reapers something they feel obligated to stand and defend, taking losses they wouldn't otherwise have taken.

No human-dominated council - if, at the Council races' weakest point after losing the Councilors and the DA, humanity can still be blocked from dominating the Council, I fail to see the part where it somehow becomes easier. It has nothing to do with trust (even if it did, it still excludes a human-dominated Council because no one trusts humanity after sacrificing the DA), and everything to do with the basic principle of "if you can't get something at its easiest, you sure as hell won't get it when it's h."

You seem really good at failing to see. We don't know how everything will play out. It might be that everything is equal with just a different fleet distribution between empires. It may also be that humanity (via Shepard) gets a big "I told you so" when reapers show up attacking everywhere, and the additional distrust vanishes in a puff or redemption. We simply do not know.

Gianna is more minor. The utterly renegade way is to cooperate with Anoleis. It demonstrates that doing so locks you out of content. Regardless of how much you belittle the content, it is still an objective loss of content.

I'll grant you this one. Even so, for all we know, Anoleis' survival resulting from helping Gianna might give the Reapers easier access to Noveria and additional tech or benefits making them harder to deal with.

Tali - the difference is you brought issues that would have been kept hidden and possibly put aside until the Reaper threat is over up to the forefront. By exposing her father, you forced them to rush to a concensus on the issue of what to do about the geth, forcing the balkanization. By not doing so, you allow them to still maintain some degree of unity/status quo, where none of the Admirals can do all that much to push their own agenda ahead. How such a situation is unfixable， you ask? YOU try mending a deep schism in a group of people and see how far you get.

We have no clue how they react after either decision. You are simply speculating. They don't immediately balkanize. It is not like there is an immediate civil war or anything.

Perhaps "unfixably wrong" is not the correct choice of words. Inferior to paragon, however, stands.

And in the end, there still is no decision other than BDtS where you can claim paragon is inferior to renegade.

The best you can claim on anything is 'might be' so far, with the possible exception of tipping off Anoleis.

[tjzsf]

Hey, Moiaussi:
Stop using variants of "wait until ME3" to dodge the question.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

Hey, Moiaussi:
Stop using variants of "wait until ME3" to dodge the question.

I have given reasons for saying that though. You are presenting specific outcomes as if they de facto will occur and I am giving alternative possible longer term outcomes.

My counter to your telling me to stop is to ask you to stop insisting that your projections are the right ones. Noone predicted that the Council would react in ME2 as they did, and noone predicted that everyone would be forced by the plot to work with Cerberus regardlss of our choices in ME1.

The outcomes you are predicting are not neccessarily accurate and even your short term predictions are really long term predictions in that you are weighting their importance as if they have already had real effects on the final ME3 outcome, something we don't and cannot know yet.

In other words, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they aren't accurate.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

So, anyone else want to interpret what Casey could mean by this?:

____________________________________________________________

CH = Casey Hudson on Paragon/Renegade choices for Mass Effect 3
GS = Gamespot interviewer




CH: "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."

GS: "and then you have to deal with those consequences"

CH: "that's right"

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 16 juin 2011 - 05:07 .

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Hey, Moiaussi:
Stop using variants of "wait until ME3" to dodge the question.

I have given reasons for saying that though. You are presenting specific outcomes as if they de facto will occur and I am giving alternative possible longer term outcomes.

You have given more far-fetched alternate outcomes that also have nothing to do with the choices in question. Suppose we do end up with a human-dominated council as a possible result of the Alliance ending up saving everyone from the Reapers. That has nothing to do with you letting the alien Council die and everything to do with whatever ME3 plot event happens.

My counter to your telling me to stop is to ask you to stop insisting that your projections are the right ones. Noone predicted that the Council would react in ME2 as they did, and noone predicted that everyone would be forced by the plot to work with Cerberus regardlss of our choices in ME1.

That counter doesn't work because 1. "Wait until ME3" is an intellectually lazy cop-out 2. citing predictions that no one could have made based on given knowledge does not discredit arguments based on given knowledge 3. I never said my projections were the right ones, merely that they made the most sense based on what we know 4. has no bearing on the original claim of "based on what we know, paragon choices have always been superior to renegade ones"

The outcomes you are predicting are not neccessarily accurate and even your short term predictions are really long term predictions in that you are weighting their importance as if they have already had real effects on the final ME3 outcome, something we don't and cannot know yet.

In other words, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they aren't accurate.

At least my "might be" is actually based on stuff the game tells us. Makes them better reasoned predictions than yours.

Based on given information, Renegade decisions have always been inferior to paragon ones.
Name me one that was the other way around - paragon choice inferior to renegade - and this convo will end.

[tjzsf]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

So, anyone else want to interpret what Casey could mean by this?:

-good/evil/obfuscate/consequences/snip-snip-

My idealistic side wants to think that this means decisions for which the top right choice isn't always better than the bottom right - possibly even worse. At the very least, more BDtS-esque choices, less "kill the Feros colonists or knock them out with the gas?" Possibly even Renegade that are actually sacrifice for the big picture instead of act like a collosal dickasaurus.

My cynical side thinks that this means they realize they done goofed with the renegade side in the previous games, and thus can only try to do the above with the short term ones while pulling "surprise" unpredictable bad consequences for previous paragon choices ("saved the rachni? you now have rachni husks!" instead of something like "saved the rachni? turns out they breed to quickly for conflict to be avoidable and now you have to deal with a rachni war after the Reapers!"). The supposed trade-offs for choices need to be, at least to some extent, predictable. That way you actually feel it when someone else calls you out on the decision, because otherwise you can alway fall back upon the "i couldn't have known this would happen" defense.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

[You have given more far-fetched alternate outcomes that also have nothing to do with the choices in question. Suppose we do end up with a human-dominated council as a possible result of the Alliance ending up saving everyone from the Reapers. That has nothing to do with you letting the alien Council die and everything to do with whatever ME3 plot event happens.

So since you consider your predictions to the only logical predictions, any other predictions are 'far fetched?' You are assuming a lot of results and insisting your assumptions are the right ones.
 
If the results of ME3 have nothing to do with the decisions in ME2, then the decisions in ME2 don't matter and the whole premise of this thread is incorrect.

That counter doesn't work because 1. "Wait until ME3" is an intellectually lazy cop-out 2. citing predictions that no one could have made based on given knowledge does not discredit arguments based on given knowledge 3. I never said my projections were the right ones, merely that they made the most sense based on what we know 4. has no bearing on the original claim of "based on what we know, paragon choices have always been superior to renegade ones"

Simply declaring yourself correct is 'intellectually lazy.' So is refusing to accept the concept that you don't know all the variables. Just because they make the most sense to you doesn't make them correct. Even if they are the most likely outcomes it doesn't make them the only plausable outcomes. It comes down to how you weight evidence.

At least my "might be" is actually based on stuff the game tells us. Makes them better reasoned predictions than yours.

Based on given information, Renegade decisions have always been inferior to paragon ones.
Name me one that was the other way around - paragon choice inferior to renegade - and this convo will end.

Mine are also based on what the game tells us. You are reading more into what the game tells us and have convinced yourself that a lot of your assumptions are fact. You also play fast and loose mixing what we know when we make the decisions with immediate results, such as discussing balkanization of the Quarians, which is hardly an obvious possiblity in advance simply from revealing a Quarian admiral endangered the fleet (and isn't enve clear after the fact), especially since the results of his doing so are obviously not good for him or the fleet.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

tjzsf wrote...

My idealistic side wants to think that this means decisions for which the top right choice isn't always better than the bottom right - possibly even worse. At the very least, more BDtS-esque choices, less "kill the Feros colonists or knock them out with the gas?" Possibly even Renegade that are actually sacrifice for the big picture instead of act like a collosal dickasaurus.

My cynical side thinks that this means they realize they done goofed with the renegade side in the previous games, and thus can only try to do the above with the short term ones while pulling "surprise" unpredictable bad consequences for previous paragon choices ("saved the rachni? you now have rachni husks!" instead of something like "saved the rachni? turns out they breed to quickly for conflict to be avoidable and now you have to deal with a rachni war after the Reapers!"). The supposed trade-offs for choices need to be, at least to some extent, predictable. That way you actually feel it when someone else calls you out on the decision, because otherwise you can alway fall back upon the "i couldn't have known this would happen" defense.

I agree with you there... or atleast hope that's the case.  I'm just glad Casey suggested that the Blue Button may not always be the "best outcome button" to players that actually want to be heroes (which both Shepards are... be they Paragon or Renegade).

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

CH = Casey Hudson on Paragon/Renegade choices for Mass Effect 3
GS = Gamespot interviewer

CH:  "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."

GS:  "and then you have to deal with those consequences"

CH:  "that's right"

9:32

Please tell me when does the Renegade Shepard ever mention or make a reference to sacrificing anything?

Casey Hudson uses the word "sacrifice". As we all know Casey Hudson is a big wig at Bioware ME.

You ask when does a Paragon make a comment like this? I will tell you. During the Lair of the Shadow Broker mission,when the Asari takes her hostage. Paragon Shepard will state " I sacrificed hundreds of human lives to save the DA." That's Bioware telling us that they consider a Paragon Shepard's choice(In ME1) as sacrificing human lives to save the DA,and alien council.

So Casey Hudson states "some are willing to make sacrifices,and others are not." Bioware's team(Led by Casey Hudson) states the Paragon has made sacrifices. As I can not personally recall any suggestions in-game to Renegades sacrificing anything. I would say it is safe to assume Casey Hudson meant Paragons make sacrifices.!.

I'm just adding 2+2=4 , not 3-1=4...Lol...

Modifié par Rip504, 18 juin 2011 - 07:27 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

"We need all our ships focusing on Sovereign, even if it means sacrificing the Council." -Shepard

Another:

"There will be sacrifices.  Being in charge means making sure they lead to the greater objective.  That's a reality shared by all soldiers, in command and on the ground.  Don't you dare suggest I made that call lightly." -Shepard


What do you think of the significance of Casey reiterating that Paragon/Renegade is NOT Good/Evil or Right/Wrong.


Also break down "just to justify the end" if you don't mind.  I'm interested in hearing different points of view. 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 juin 2011 - 07:48 .

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"We need all our ships focusing on Sovereign, even if it means sacrificing the Council." -Shepard

Another:

"There will be sacrifices.  Being in charge means making sure they lead to the greater objective.  That's a reality shared by all soldiers, in command and on the ground.  Don't you dare suggest I made that call lightly." -Shepard


What do you think of the significance of Casey reiterating that Paragon/Renegade is NOT Good/Evil or Right/Wrong.


Also break down "just to justify the end" if you don't mind.  I'm interested in hearing different points of view. 

I remember both of those statements clearly. Good quotes. But obviously I wasn't trying to stregthen the Renegade argument. LOL. As I have sayed before,either side can see themselves sacrificing something in this situation,and most others. His words are generally vague IMO.

It has never been about right/wrong or Good/Evil IMO. It has always been about choice. It's your choice and it carries weight. The reasoning,decision making,and reactions are all based on choice. What is your choice,what do you think. The reasons behind your choices can be very different,but right/wrong good/evil means it would be taken as one way and have a constant. You do X for this reason and Y for another reason,not because both are good/evil right/wrong. No you have a reason behind your choice. And this choice may effect the rest of your playthrough. All of my characters have Red and Blue bars filled. Most of my playthroughs have either Paragon or Renegade maxed out,with at least 2 bars of the other filled.!.

Just to justify the end.
You are unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good.
You are unwilling to sacrifice the here and now for potential future benefits.
Save the Rachni and potentially have an ally,or kill it now to be safe rather then have a future threat or ally.
Killing the Council for humanity to take over.(here and Now) Rather then saving an alien council and potentially having the council accept humanity as a member of the council,and potentially gaining the respect of alien races.Renegade=Humanity takes over now. Paragon=humanity slowly being accepted by citadel council races.
Kill the Geth,no future threat also no future completely united Geth army. Rewrite the Geth and potentially have an allied Completely united Geth race,or the potential threat of  having  them all indoctrinated
Kill the Krogan cure to keep control over the Krogan. Suppress them even further. Or Cure the Krogan and potentially have a grateful Krogan race.Inhabiting their world first,then move them out to the traverse. Potential ally.

A lot of Renegades choices have you sacrificing the potential greater good,for the safety of here and now.
The Paragon often sacrifices the safety of here and now to potentially help in the future or "greater good".
Etc.
 What I mean is some of the Renegade choices take effect at that exact moment in time,while Paragons have to wait and see their choice develop ,(Kill the Rachi & they are never a threat again.From that exact moment. Save the Rachni and see how your choice is developed along the next 2 games.) Another example of sacrificing the here and now for the greater good. Safety now or a potential ally that can help every race in citadel space.

You have made the argument that Paragons have sacrificed safety for whatever reason. I am saying the Paragons may sacrifice safety(at times), for the  potential greater good. Alot of Renegade choices effects can be seen right away,as most Paragons choices are seen in future events. Usally helping the greater good.

Modifié par Rip504, 18 juin 2011 - 08:54 .