380 réponses à ce sujet

[Rekkampum]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Replay value has nothing to do with this issue... and it's not about "right" and "wrong" choices, both accomplish their objectives. But the problem that defeates the notion of a "hard choice" is when the Paragon choices have yielded "better" results every time with regard to content, lives lost, and positive validation is concerned.

It's not a "hard decision" if you know that the Paragon option = the best option. If your goal is to save the most lives (for example) then just hit the blue button, it doesn't matter what the choice is... that's the issue I'm "whining" about.

There's never been a time where the Renegade choice has yielded "Better" end results than making a Paragon choice thusfar... and that's an unfortunate and clear bias.


And for the record, the scope of features Bioware offers is no excuse for Paragon favoritism.  It is what it is.

Not true. Saving the Destiny Ascension, for instance, causes you sacrifice human lives during the battle of the Citadel. Choosing the Renegade path, doesn't cause as many human casualties. Saving the lives of the three hostages on the Asteroid Balak has commandeered results in him escaping. Choosing Renegade and killing him, while sacrificing those lives, ensures you won't have to deal with him in the future. Also when facing Lord Darius, choosing the Paragon side actually has you doing nothing short of kissing his a** to kowtow to his ridiculous demands. The Renegade path however, allows you to wipe out a deluded idiot and score a pretty nice load of experience and equipment.

Also, unless your Charm skills are high enough, saving the hostages in the factory during Zaeed's mission ends up with Vido escaping and Zaeed nolonger being your friend. Choosing the Renegade path allows you to help Zaeed fulfill his revenge. Also, choosing the Renegade path in Overlord allows you to keep the lab rat and continue studies that contribute to geth research. You also haven't included the times when either choice isn't a visibly greater option - Jack, Miranda, Garrus, Grunt, and Jacob's loyalty missions, for instance.

Modifié par Rekkampum, 10 juin 2011 - 06:26 .

[CroGamer002]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


I'm sorry to say this but that missed the point entirely:

The job gets finished regardless of the red/blue choice you make.

So?

It just doesn't end same way every time.

Humans do not dominate the Council (Anderson always complains that his voice is never heard).

That's because he's not politicians and he wants to take actions on Reapers that both Council and Alliance covered up.

With Udina in other hand they love to listen to him.

Paragons (from what's been said so far) have heard nothing about that terrorist committing atrocities ever again.

You mean the guy who LIED to his own man about real plan on Terra Nova and failed with it would have good chance to do another attack?

Loss of innocents by itself is fine.  Lack of friends isn't an issue, you can gain a number of friends as a Renegade.

Hmh, OK?

The problem is still that for a player whose goal is to make the best overall decision (ie. the one offering the most positive stuff), the Renegade option has NEVER been the best option across ME1 and ME2 based on what's been presented thusfar in the games.  That's the issue in question.  Paragon choice (each and every time) has been the one with the most exclusive benefits. 

You're basically asking for imbalance in choices which Bioware is not aiming for.

And Paragons outside of worthless camoes didn't get anything more or better then Renegades.




Actually Renegade got more and better. They didn't got "Ah yes, Reapers" line and got more time with Anderson.

Thank God I killed Council with my canon.

That's not a sign to change to the pure Paragon side, it's a sign to request that the game allows for choices worth thinking about again.

Heh?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rekkampum wrote...

Not true. Saving the Destiny Ascension, for instance, causes you sacrifice human lives during the battle of the Citadel. Choosing the Renegade path, doesn't cause as many human casualties. Saving the lives of the three hostages on the Asteroid Balak has commandeered results in him escaping. Choosing Renegade and killing him, while sacrificing those lives, ensures you won't have to deal with him in the future. Also when facing Lord Darius, choosing the Paragon side actually has you doing nothing short of kissing his a** to kowtow to his ridiculous demands. The Renegade path however, allows you to wipe out a deluded idiot and score a pretty nice load of experience and equipment.

In the Battle of the Citadel, more lives are lost with the Renegade choice than is lost with the Paragon choice... much more.

The escaped criminal is not mentioned to have committed any crimes since... so all you have is 3 dead innocent people.

Also, unless your Charm skills are high enough, saving the hostages in the factory during Zaeed's mission ends up with Vido escaping and Zaeed nolonger being your friend. Choosing the Renegade path allows you to help Zaeed fulfill his revenge. Also, choosing the Renegade path in Overlord allows you to keep the lab rat and continue studies that contribute to geth research. You also haven't included the times when either choice isn't a visibly greater option - Jack, Miranda, Garrus, Grunt, and Jacob's loyalty missions, for instance.

The Paragon choice allows Zaeed to stay loyal even if Video gets away.  No resulting benefits have been mentioned regarding Overlord and certainly no new content...

The only thing that prevents Paragon favoritism is if a Renegade choice could actually cause the most positively-filled outcome to a situation.  That has not happened.  If they are even, they are irrelevant (cancel eachother out).

[tjzsf]

Mesina clearly did not understand a single thing Gogeta said.
The story doesn't end the same way - this is true, paragons have a better ending. Imbalance already exists with better major story results going to paragons.

Being renegade isn't about wanting a more grimdark/cynical universe. It's about playing a less idealistic Shepard who's rightfully concerned about the long run, so he'll make some choices that are morally questionable for the greater good - it's the Renegade, not the Paragon, who's supposed to care about the long-term good over the short-term right. As it stands, the Paragon is both for the short-term right, and his actions only result in long-term good.

3 things that are irrelevant:
1. Wait until ME3 - you don't need to know how it ends to know what's the better decision at the time. If you had the chance to invest in a company with a 99% chance of returning a lot of money and a 1% chance of failing hard, you don't need to know whether that company ended up failing hard to determine what the better decision is.
2. Bring Down the Sky/Elnora - these are isolated incidents, and the only ones I can think of, in which there's a real trade-off between Paragon and Renegade. More decisions need to be like BDtS, where it is actually between short-term right (save the hostages) vs long-term greater good (kill Balak, so they know taking hostages won't work).
3. You don't have to be a pure paragon to finish the mission - but you do to have the best universe and to actually roleplay instead of metagame.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mesina2 wrote...

So?

It just doesn't end same way every time.

So it's consequently irrelevant. 

That's because he's not politicians and he wants to take actions on Reapers that both Council and Alliance covered up.

With Udina in other hand they love to listen to him.

Actually there's nothing detailing the relationship Udina has with the Council... except that Udina kisses up to them.. hardly dominance.

You mean the guy who LIED to his own man about real plan on Terra Nova and failed with it would have good chance to do another attack?

Same result.

Hmh, OK?

Mass Effect 2 has you looking for lots of friends in dark places... not the issue.  And the lives of the Batarians (Arrival anyone?) were sacrificed to prevent the Reaper invasion... and that was acceptable to Shepard (regardless of Paragon/Renegade orientation).

You're basically asking for imbalance in choices which Bioware is not aiming for.

And Paragons outside of worthless camoes didn't get anything more or better then Renegades.

No the imbalance is making the best choices always come from the Paragon button.  A balance would be one where it could be any of them pending the situation.

And like I said before, it doesn't matter how important you feel it is, acknowledging it's there while the Renegades have nothing is Paragon favoritism.

Actually Renegade got more and better. They didn't got "Ah yes, Reapers" line and got more time with Anderson.

Thank God I killed Council with my canon.

Renegades never got "more."  They got Anderson/Udina... who are always there no matter what

Heh?

Think about it.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juin 2011 - 07:41 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

tjzsf wrote...

Mesina clearly did not understand a single thing Gogeta said.
The story doesn't end the same way - this is true, paragons have a better ending. Imbalance already exists with better major story results going to paragons.

Being renegade isn't about wanting a more grimdark/cynical universe. It's about playing a less idealistic Shepard who's rightfully concerned about the long run, so he'll make some choices that are morally questionable for the greater good - it's the Renegade, not the Paragon, who's supposed to care about the long-term good over the short-term right. As it stands, the Paragon is both for the short-term right, and his actions only result in long-term good.

Agreed.

[Dave of Canada]

*Screw it, not in the mood to argue with walls at 4:00AM*

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 juin 2011 - 08:13 .

[CroGamer002]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Actually there's nothing detailing the relationship Udina has with the Council... except that Udina kisses up to them.. hardly dominance.

If Udina is on power and Council is dead then he pretty much runs the show.

He decides who get's Spectre status and he is going for Allaince's intrests while making aliens hate humans even more.

You mean the guy who LIED to his own man about real plan on Terra Nova and failed with it would have good chance to do another attack?

Same result.

What same result?

Mass Effect 2 has you looking for lots of friends in dark places... not the issue.  And the lives of the Batarians (Arrival anyone?) were sacrificed to prevent the Reaper invasion... and that was acceptable to Shepard (regardless of Paragon/Renegade orientation).

Arrival didn't had a choice and Paragon Shepard is NOT fine with that.

No the imbalance is making the best choices always come from the Paragon button.  A balance would be one where it could be any of them pending the situation.

And like I said before, it doesn't matter how important you feel it is, acknowledging it's there while the Renegades have nothing is Paragon favoritism.

You mean like Rachni husks what Paragons get?

I mean seriously, that's the only thing we currently know about ME1&2 choices in ME3.


I still don't think that Renegade choices from Overlord and Collector Base are worse.
You'll get useful tech from Cerberus, just they MIGHT be stronger to fight against.

Renegades never got "more."  They got Anderson/Udina... who are always there no matter what

You get more time with Anderson and you can say to Council "f*ck you" again and still get Spectre status back from Anderson.

While Paragon's get less time with Anderson and more with old Council in which you get frustrated by this morons.



I say Renegades won there.
You can leave satisfied with Spectre status.

Modifié par Mesina2, 10 juin 2011 - 08:27 .

[CroGamer002]

tjzsf wrote...

Mesina clearly did not understand a single thing Gogeta said.
The story doesn't end the same way - this is true, paragons have a better ending. Imbalance already exists with better major story results going to paragons.

Paragons got better ending?

Since when?!


We get Council in end of ME1 to talk to? F*ck them! They suck!

In ME2 Paragons get cool explosion over little lame EMP.
I guess that's better then.

Being renegade isn't about wanting a more grimdark/cynical universe. It's about playing a less idealistic Shepard who's rightfully concerned about the long run, so he'll make some choices that are morally questionable for the greater good - it's the Renegade, not the Paragon, who's supposed to care about the long-term good over the short-term right. As it stands, the Paragon is both for the short-term right, and his actions only result in long-term good.

Oh yeah, Paragon worthless camoes are so good for long terms of the galaxy.
Even though Renegades can still get most of those camoes.

3 things that are irrelevant:
1. Wait until ME3 - you don't need to know how it ends to know what's the better decision at the time. If you had the chance to invest in a company with a 99% chance of returning a lot of money and a 1% chance of failing hard, you don't need to know whether that company ended up failing hard to determine what the better decision is.

Yes, let's wait for ME3.

2. Bring Down the Sky/Elnora - these are isolated incidents, and the only ones I can think of, in which there's a real trade-off between Paragon and Renegade. More decisions need to be like BDtS, where it is actually between short-term right (save the hostages) vs long-term greater good (kill Balak, so they know taking hostages won't work).

BDtS isn't good example since only Balak went to destroy Terra Nova. Others though they were going for quick slave grab.


Though I do agree, there should be choices for short-term good( Paragon) and long-term good( Renegade).

But there's a danger in that since Fable 3 went like that and it was retarded to be a Good unless you bought every house and store and wait stand on 1 place for an hour before doing timed mission.

3. You don't have to be a pure paragon to finish the mission - but you do to have the best universe and to actually roleplay instead of metagame.

Oh I agree on that one.
But it goes both ways.

I mean how is killing Shiala pragmatic or even those colonists? It's to easy to save them. Just use that damn grenade you get.

[CroGamer002]

@Saphra Deden what did you expect from guy that backstab you in ME1?

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well I don't feel very satisfied (I don't even get Spectre status because I picked Udina). I just feel the conversation with Anderson is... boring compared to the one with the Council. It's more fun interacting with the three Councilors than with just one person. Maybe I'd feel differently if we'd gotten more interaction with Udina. He is interesting to talk to because he creates a lot of conflict with the player/Shepard.

That's called FUN in a video game!

The other aspect is, Shepard (me, the player) played a pivotal role in the creation of this new Council, yet we don't even get to witness it action. How could I not feel disappointed? It's made even worse by the fact other than the prologue the game never really makes it 100% clear if this Council really is all human. I'm pretty sure it is, but the game could be more explicit. Instead to save costs the Council situation is for all intents and purposes identical to the one that exists in a non-import game.

So, again, how could I not feel disappointed and cheated?

Even seeing the new Council and having them be a trio of snobbish pricks who turn their nose up at me and dismiss me would have been better than nothing. It would have allowed for some entertaining interaction with Shepard.

'cause, you know, video games are suppose to entertain.

Lack of Human-led Council was the worst offender of all the Renegade import decisions. There's no reason why they couldn't have added them just like they did with Wreav for those who killed Wrex. It really makes the Renegade path seem like some half-assed thing they threw in at the last moment.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pretty much all three of the major story-arc decision carryovers were half-assed/non-existent with the Renegades.

All things considered, the Council decision, the Feros decision, the Rachni decision, and even the Noveria garrage pass decisions should have been the most important carryovers... because they were the main story decisions that everyone has to do.

[Labrev]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Risk-reward. Very simple reality.

Renegade choices are typically playing it "safe" and low-risk. Rachni queen promises to stay civil. You do not trust her, so you kill it. You accept, then, that the queen dies even if possibly telling the truth. Whatever good may come out of that, you're not going to see it because letting it go is too risky (or, [insert logic here]).

So when you don't take a risk, then don't expect reward. Because usually, you accept not getting any. Sorry, it comes back to the same thing: grow a pair and stand behind what you choose.

This is not to mention that there still is nothing that has established Renegade decisions being less advantageous ones.

So in other words, you are saying that the Paragon choices are the ones with the rewards while Renegade choices don't have them because it's a "safe/logical" decision?  Paragon favoritism. 

And there's a difference between "having a pair" and having the game make one button always provide the best outcome.

Think about it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said "safe/low-risk." Not "logical." Because paragon decisons have plenty of logic in their own right. Nice try forcing the conclusion that paragon = illogical.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you are the one that accepts, at the time you make your decision, against gaining any benefits that would come with the decision you make. At least the majority of renegade choices are of that nature: risk-averse. So you can't turn around and blame the devs for trying to invent a reward for your decisions where it can't be made. If you want to make them have paragon decisions backfire completely so you feel vindicated, well, that's not sensible to the game. If they make a right/wrong system, then it kills the value of going back and playing again with different decisions because people will just go back and choose the same thing.

And again, as of now there is no backing to "blue button = best outcome" myth that you continue to perpetuate. I'm dying to see a concrete example of this.

These decisions have really not manifested into proving to have been right or wrong yet, hence the argument that we won't know until ME3. Smart money says that renegades get fewer problems to deal with, while paragons get both benefits and consequences to their decisions. There really isn't a more diplomatic solution than that.

If it proves to be unfairly one-sided in ME3, I'll come back and eat my words. But as of now, this is typical game player screaming-into-mirror.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 10 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[MDT1]

Sorry, but when I read these threads I always must think:
"Another renegade player that complains he can't interact with things he killed before."

I see this as the core of beeing renegade: You sacrifice things (rachni, council, your soul) to be sure you don't have to bother with them or problems they could produce later.
Its like the renegade interrupts, you step in with force because you see this will leed nowhere.

The only time this is broken for me is when it considers working with cerberus.
But thats because I'm not so sure if working with cerberus isn't actually pargon by itself.
I sometimes think destroying the base should have been the renegade decision but because cerberus turns out evil it became the paragon decision and this somehow hurts the renegade =/= evil philosophy they normally had.

Modifié par MDT1, 10 juin 2011 - 01:16 .

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
I fully expect that the "destroy Collector base" to be the Paragon choice that can bite Shepard in the butt. At least - that's how I would tell the story.

Pragmatically - the Collector base is invaluable, but it's built on filth and death. It's "wrong" as Shepard himself says - but, Shepard's own blind idealism (which TIM criticizes him for if you choose to blow it up) might actually cause far more damage to the universe at the expense of "right action".

Yes, that's how I would tell it too. Unfortunately, it appears we'll get Paragon favoritism again: keeping the base will strengthen Cerberus, and Cerberus is an enemiy in ME3. I'm still hoping that the base will result in some benefit with regard to the bigger goal of defeating the Reapers, but I don't hold my breath.

[Ieldra]

MDT1 wrote...
I see this as the core of beeing renegade: You sacrifice things (rachni, council, your soul) to be sure you don't have to bother with them or problems they could produce later. Its like the renegade interrupts, you step in with force because you see this will leed nowhere.

The core of the Renegade mindset is consequentialism and expediency. It means to disregard the moral implications of the immediate action in order to benefit a bigger goal. The Renegade knows that doing "the right thing" does not necessarily result in the best outcome, and acts accordingly. To be Renegade does NOT neccessarily mean that you don't care. It means that you do what's necessary regardless of how much it pains you, and how much you would wish that things were different and you needn't make a hard coice. A Renegade is not a callous jerk unless you want him to be. That the world might come to see him as a monster, that's part of the price the Renegade pays for getting things done.

ME's Renegades have other traits as adjuncts, some of which rather unpleasant, but the core of it is this: to not let empathy and intuitive morality get in the way of getting things done. Regardless of how you feel about it. It is an attitude particularly appropriate in a war for survival. Because there can be no question that defeating the Reapers is an absolute necessity. From the eye of a Renegade, the Paragon is ruled by the Just World Fallacy, the assumption that the right action will always result in the best outcome.

Unfortunately, in a fictional universe where the Just World Fallacy is true (as in so many traditional stories) the Renegade mindset has no reason to exist. So if Bioware wants to give equal consideration to both sides, they have to make their universe different and deny the Paragons their preferred way of things turning out in about half of all important decisions. They can't have it both ways.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

@Saphra Deden what did you expect from guy that backstab you in ME1?

I'm going to assume you read my post and comprehended it, and that this question is tongue in cheek.

What I expected: I expected Udina to still be an insufferable grump, and he was. Sadly, I only got like one sentence with him and then he was gone. The news reports about him were more memorable than the actual meeting with him.

I'll grant you that one. For someone who is so into image and working the system you would think Udina would be trying harder to use Shepard via his popularity. Nevertheless the Anderson renegade route keeps your Spectre status 'whether the Council likes it or not.'

[MDT1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...
I see this as the core of beeing renegade: You sacrifice things (rachni, council, your soul) to be sure you don't have to bother with them or problems they could produce later. Its like the renegade interrupts, you step in with force because you see this will leed nowhere.

The core of the Renegade mindset is consequentialism and expediency. It means to disregard the moral implications of the immediate action in order to benefit a bigger goal. The Renegade knows that doing "the right thing" does not necessarily result in the best outcome, and acts accordingly. To be Renegade does NOT neccessarily mean that you don't care. It means that you do what's necessary regardless of how much it pains you, and how much you would wish that things were different and you needn't make a hard coice. A Renegade is not a callous jerk unless you want him to be. That the world might come to see him as a monster, that's part of the price the Renegade pays for getting things done.

Thank you for elaborating my argumentation.

ME's Renegades have other traits as adjuncts, some of which rather unpleasant, but the core of it is this: to not let empathy and intuitive morality get in the way of getting things done. Regardless of how you feel about it. It is an attitude particularly appropriate in a war for survival. Because there can be no question that defeating the Reapers is an absolute necessity. From the eye of a Renegade, the Paragon is ruled by the Just World Fallacy, the assumption that the right action will always result in the best outcome.

Unfortunately, in a fictional universe where the Just World Fallacy is true (as in so many traditional stories) the Renegade mindset has no reason to exist. So if Bioware wants to give equal consideration to both sides, they have to make their universe different and deny the Paragons their preferred way of things turning out in about half of all important decisions. They can't have it both ways.

Yes.
So we have to wait how the choices actually influence ME3.
Naturally I'd expect that some paragon decisions worked as intended and some backfire at you.
So with all paragon you should basically be in the same  position as with all renegade.
You can't hope for more as Bioware must reward both choices with success in the end.

As I also mentioned the anomaly in this are decisions onsidering Cerberus.
While blowing the collector base up might be considered as renegade this only makes sense if Shep expects Cerberus to actually do something usefull in the fight against the Reapers with it. But for me this mindsetting is ultimatly Paragon and I can't understand why a true renegade would take the risk and trust Cerberus.
So the whole paragon/renegade system somehow blows up at that point.

I can't remember another point where I wouldn't have labeld the renegade decision as rengade so the system seems consistend to me (except collector base).

Modifié par MDT1, 10 juin 2011 - 02:44 .

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, that's how I would tell it too. Unfortunately, it appears we'll get Paragon favoritism again: keeping the base will strengthen Cerberus, and Cerberus is an enemiy in ME3. I'm still hoping that the base will result in some benefit with regard to the bigger goal of defeating the Reapers, but I don't hold my breath.

If it makes the game harder though, then it will mean renegades get that 'more content' that they keep complaining about paragons getting.

[Bailyn242]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Rekkampum wrote...

Not true. Saving the Destiny Ascension, for instance, causes you sacrifice human lives during the battle of the Citadel. Choosing the Renegade path, doesn't cause as many human casualties. Saving the lives of the three hostages on the Asteroid Balak has commandeered results in him escaping. Choosing Renegade and killing him, while sacrificing those lives, ensures you won't have to deal with him in the future. Also when facing Lord Darius, choosing the Paragon side actually has you doing nothing short of kissing his a** to kowtow to his ridiculous demands. The Renegade path however, allows you to wipe out a deluded idiot and score a pretty nice load of experience and equipment.

1. In the Battle of the Citadel, more lives are lost with the Renegade choice than is lost with the Paragon choice... much more.

2. The escaped criminal is not mentioned to have committed any crimes since... so all you have is 3 dead innocent people.

Also, unless your Charm skills are high enough, saving the hostages in the factory during Zaeed's mission ends up with Vido escaping and Zaeed nolonger being your friend. Choosing the Renegade path allows you to help Zaeed fulfill his revenge. Also, choosing the Renegade path in Overlord allows you to keep the lab rat and continue studies that contribute to geth research. You also haven't included the times when either choice isn't a visibly greater option - Jack, Miranda, Garrus, Grunt, and Jacob's loyalty missions, for instance.

3. The Paragon choice allows Zaeed to stay loyal even if Video gets away.  No resulting benefits have been mentioned regarding Overlord and certainly no new content...

The only thing that prevents Paragon favoritism is if a Renegade choice could actually cause the most positively-filled outcome to a situation.  That has not happened.  If they are even, they are irrelevant (cancel eachother out).

1. Objection, facts not in evidence. In other words prove it that more people die with the death of the council.

2. Who says, ME2 doesn't give us a view of the Galaxy at large, merely a tightly focused and controled access to information... you know, the whole Cerberus controls my ship and communications thing?

3. Again, without a high enough charm this isn't an option, on top of that we could still be screwed by not taking out Vido if we need the to recruit the Blue Suns in ME3. A loyal Zheed running the Blue Suns would basically put them at Shepard's beck and call come Reaper invasion time. This is another that has the potential to bite us in the ass come ME3.

[Bailyn242]

tjzsf wrote...

Mesina clearly did not understand a single thing Gogeta said.
The story doesn't end the same way - this is true, paragons have a better ending. Imbalance already exists with better major story results going to paragons.

Being renegade isn't about wanting a more grimdark/cynical universe. It's about playing a less idealistic Shepard who's rightfully concerned about the long run, so he'll make some choices that are morally questionable for the greater good - it's the Renegade, not the Paragon, who's supposed to care about the long-term good over the short-term right. As it stands, the Paragon is both for the short-term right, and his actions only result in long-term good.

3 things that are irrelevant:
1. Wait until ME3 - you don't need to know how it ends to know what's the better decision at the time. If you had the chance to invest in a company with a 99% chance of returning a lot of money and a 1% chance of failing hard, you don't need to know whether that company ended up failing hard to determine what the better decision is.
2. Bring Down the Sky/Elnora - these are isolated incidents, and the only ones I can think of, in which there's a real trade-off between Paragon and Renegade. More decisions need to be like BDtS, where it is actually between short-term right (save the hostages) vs long-term greater good (kill Balak, so they know taking hostages won't work).
3. You don't have to be a pure paragon to finish the mission - but you do to have the best universe and to actually roleplay instead of metagame.

So the meat of your argument is "I wanna metagame and as far as I can see my choices should always be paragon. I have no real proof of my perceived slight but I wanna **** about it, so there...."

Again, regardless of your attempt to ignore that the bulk of the real paragon/renegade choices have yet to be resolved, there is no evidence your claims have merit. So if you want to "win" the argument you'll just have to document all paragon choices and all renegade choices in both games. List them here and show how the paragon choice was better, and by better you argument better have more meat than "but paragons got an email, boo hoo." This list should also document all of the interrupts as well.

When you've found the stones to do this your argument will have some weight and you'll be able to defend it. Until then you're really just wasting bandwidth to whine.

[Dean_the_Young]

Bailyn242 wrote...

1. Objection, facts not in evidence. In other words prove it that more people die with the death of the council.

Bailyn, this is a core component of the choice. On the balance of the Destiny Ascension versus Human casualties alone, the Destiny Ascension's 10,000 far outweighs the Alliance's near 4000 who perish if you save the Destiny Ascension... and that's even though Human casualties only reduce if you let the Destiny Ascension die, and Council/Alien casualties go up because the Destiny Ascension wasn't the only force being threatened by the continued action of the Geth.

2. Who says, ME2 doesn't give us a view of the Galaxy at large, merely a tightly focused and controled access to information... you know, the whole Cerberus controls my ship and communications thing?

Bailyn, there are also the news reports, non-Cerberus cast members, Cerberus Daily News, books, and a host of other sources outside of Cerberus's ability to influence.

3. Again, without a high enough charm this isn't an option, on top of that we could still be screwed by not taking out Vido if we need the to recruit the Blue Suns in ME3. A loyal Zheed running the Blue Suns would basically put them at Shepard's beck and call come Reaper invasion time. This is another that has the potential to bite us in the ass come ME3.

Bailyn, except there's no implication, sub-plot, foreshadowing, or even the slightest inclination of interest on Zaeed's part that he is in any way inclined to taking control of the Blue Suns when Vido is dead.

Zip. Zero. Nada.

You'd be just as balanced to say that if you spare Morinth, she could give you control of the Eclipse... or Samara will allow you to recruit an army of Justicars. Neither are in any way supported by the game's narrative. And once we begin inventing non-implied links, we can invent any number of them. 

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 juin 2011 - 05:04 .

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Pretty much all three of the major story-arc decision carryovers were half-assed/non-existent with the Renegades.

All things considered, the Council decision, the Feros decision, the Rachni decision, and even the Noveria garrage pass decisions should have been the most important carryovers... because they were the main story decisions that everyone has to do.

Yeah, ME2 has cases like there not being any indicator that killing the Rachni Queen was right OR wrong for a Renegade.