380 réponses à ce sujet

[Bailyn242]

Dean, I'll give you the 10K aboard the Destiny Ascension, I had forgotten that.

As for the narrow news clips and even narrower books (I've read them all) you really get no mention of Balak, he either hasn't done anything or he hasn't done anything yet. Heck, judging from the response of the Batarian turncoat in BDtS they batarian slavers might have capped him for screwing up a good slave raid with his genocidal antics. Regardless, the nature of ME2 (a tightly focussed linear narative) and the nature of any novels ("Stick to the story stupid" says the editor) we won't have seen what he has been up to unless it impacts the story. Heck Balak could have been taking advantage of the Collector attacks to get in a few of his own under the cover of their raids.

No indication other than his rage and anger over having them taken from him, true. Then again I've yet to see what the negative was for the Renegades was in this case. I'm not even saying that this will be, I'm saying it is certainly possible if that is the way the Devs want to take us.

I'm still waiting for more proof that Renegades are so put upon other than the loss of a couple cameos, 35000 credit discount at a couple stores and more spam in my inbox. In one way the extra emails might be viewed as a negative for paragons, I mean we do have to wade through them and click mark as read even.

[Dean_the_Young]

Seboist wrote...

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.

I honestly don't know which side you're approaching that from or what your point is, so I'll settle for a bit puzzled as to what you mean, and then taking the opportunity to expand my thoughts with an alternative.

I'd have been inclined towards being far more forgiving towards the imports in general had it been the story decisions that were well reflected and the side-quests that were lopsided. I mean, that would be far more reasonable. But instead, it's the side-decisions that were ideal, and the unavoidable story decisions that were 'bleh'. Strangely because most 'kill or let go' choices revolved around the story choices, and not side quests. Which besides not necessarily being necessary (see the hostage crisis mission), doesn't really entail a lack of content. Cameos are great, but they aren't the only way.


Here would have been my proposed 'instead ofs' for various cases of the required story decisions in Mass Effect 1. (Note, these are the Renegade equivalents.)


-Fist, if you killed him, could have been referred to by someone who knew him personally. An idea I find humerous would have been, in place of Fist, meeting Fist's 'son', who could have an entire 'I am -Insert Name- Fist. You killed my father. Prepare to die.' moment, whether Shepard was the one to kill Fist or not. No experience, no credits... just a funny little scene.

-Shiala should have been a stand-in for Elizabeth what's-her-last-name, or vice versa. Not only did they have similar general causes (somewhat attractive 'young' women who regret having harmed the colonists but then helps Shepard), but Elizabeth couldn't die if you wanted her to. The 'generic nameless colonist' was insulting all the more because there was a perfectly applicable substitute.

-Rachni Queen Ambassador, if you killed her, could have been replaced by Rachni survivor/relative of someone who died from Rachni. Whether a survivor from the Rachni Wars, or a relative of those who served and died, or even a survivor from Noveria, there's really no objective reason that someone who would have appreciated Shepard's act couldn't have said thanks (or not: moralist protestor?).

-I'd have made Lorik Quin a stand-in/alternative to Gianna Parsini as a quest giver/garage pass cameo, but that's as much as for Lorik as anything else. Had there been an alternative to the Rachni Queen ambassador 20 steps away, this mid-mission cameo wouldn't have stood out as much as it did.

-Rana Thanopolis (the Virmire Survivor) should, at the very least, have been replaced by a data terminal/pad which could have told us the same things about Okeer's experiments. The loss of the information, rather than the cameo, is the stronger annoyance.

-Renegade Council should at least have been introduced, if only to dismiss us personally. Ungrateful Human-dominated Council to stand in for the ungrateful Paragon Council for some equilibrium.

[Dean_the_Young]

Bailyn242 wrote...

Dean, I'll give you the 10K aboard the Destiny Ascension, I had forgotten that.

As for the narrow news clips and even narrower books (I've read them all) you really get no mention of Balak, he either hasn't done anything or he hasn't done anything yet. Heck, judging from the response of the Batarian turncoat in BDtS they batarian slavers might have capped him for screwing up a good slave raid with his genocidal antics. Regardless, the nature of ME2 (a tightly focussed linear narative) and the nature of any novels ("Stick to the story stupid" says the editor) we won't have seen what he has been up to unless it impacts the story. Heck Balak could have been taking advantage of the Collector attacks to get in a few of his own under the cover of their raids.

No indication other than his rage and anger over having them taken from him, true. Then again I've yet to see what the negative was for the Renegades was in this case. I'm not even saying that this will be, I'm saying it is certainly possible if that is the way the Devs want to take us.

I have this fuzzy feeling you're even fuzzier about what the various different aspects of criticism are.

I'm still waiting for more proof that Renegades are so put upon other than the loss of a couple cameos, 35000 credit discount at a couple stores and more spam in my inbox. In one way the extra emails might be viewed as a negative for paragons, I mean we do have to wade through them and click mark as read even.

There's been plenty enough given already, in this thread and the last and the ones before it. If you don't quite grasp that people want cameos and equivalent conversations reflecting their choices regardless of their path... well, you don't. And probably never will.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Objection, facts not in evidence.

The DA was already under heavy fire when the Alliance fleet arrives. We do not know the casualty figures on the DA if it lives. We also don't know the total casualty figures for the entire battle. It is probably that saving the DA means fewer casulties over all but we don't know for certain.

Also, since we win anyway either way, for anyone who is taking a pro human stand, humanity might actualy end up better off.

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.

While this is true, Shepard isn't listening to every news report, and presumably these people are living more than an additional two years so it might just be that there isn't any immediate effect. The Terminus systems raid only sporaticly for example, so there not being any blue suns raids immediately wouldn't neccessarily be noticed, especially with much more significant events like entire colonies disappearing.

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.

There was none of the above regarding a paragon influenced Garrus backsliding to an even more renegade mindset, either, or about the Council, who seemed to finally accept at the end of ME1 that the Reapers are a real threat, suddenly denying you two years later, or Cerberus bringing you back from the dead and your agreeing to work with them regardless of how you felt about them in ME1. Much stranger twists have happened.

In fact a very case-in-point situation happened. Wrex gave no indication in ME1 of wanting to go back home and try leading again, but did just that in ME2. Wrex's situation was very similar to Zaheed's except for already having gotten revenge on his betrayer.

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. 

Either of those might happen too. Both are plausable benefits. That doesn't mean they will happen, just that they are plausable. The Quarians don't say they will support you either when Shepard give that little 'I'll still need your help against the Reapers' line at the end of Tali's trial, but that doesn't mean they won't end up being convinced to help. Foreshadowing is not a requirement for a plot element to occur.

[Bailyn242]

Thanks Dean, that's more like what I was hoping for even if I don't agree with all of them.

First off, I really dislike the idea that you get a pass via some random replacement person as filler since you killed whomever it was supposed to be. There should be consequences for taking the easy way and just shooting people or letting your team do it. So in that case Fist is off the board and so are the Rachni.

If I recall correctly wasn't it Liz's mom who was the person on Illium in Shiala's place?

I agree on your Lorik Quin idea, that one works without dampening the consequences of shooting first, ask questions later attitudes.

I'm torn on the datapad / Rana Thanopolis thing. It might be interesting but again, what it sounds like is the removal of the consequences of your actions. Shoot first ask questions later works but it leaves you short on answers, in the real world as well as the game world. Why in a non-metagame sense should that be required?

Seriously, I've seen quite a few posts in this thread pointing to Casey's quote about renegades vs paragons but none are willing to address the difference between shoot first and I wanna question this guy / I might need this guy later. Where's the consequence? Come to think of it, it isn't a reward for Paragons at all, it is a readily apparent consequence that people are complaining about.

I suppose that the devs could have had Fist take a shot at Shepard instead of whining that I had time to make him miserable.

I even suppose that the devs could have put in a couple minor "oops shouldn't have trusted that guy" moments into ME2 but who and where? Other than Fist, Helena and Rana I'm coming up blank as to who I trusted that could have backfired on my decision off the top of my head.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Objection, facts not in evidence.

The DA was already under heavy fire when the Alliance fleet arrives. We do not know the casualty figures on the DA if it lives. We also don't know the total casualty figures for the entire battle. It is probably that saving the DA means fewer casulties over all but we don't know for certain.

Overruled by narrative impetus and codecies emphasizing heightened Council losses in addition to the Destiny Ascension in Renegade path.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 juin 2011 - 08:01 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Here would have been my proposed 'instead ofs' for various cases of the required story decisions in Mass Effect 1. (Note, these are the Renegade equivalents.)

-Fist, if you killed him, could have been referred to by someone who knew him personally. An idea I find humerous would have been, in place of Fist, meeting Fist's 'son', who could have an entire 'I am -Insert Name- Fist. You killed my father. Prepare to die.' moment, whether Shepard was the one to kill Fist or not. No experience, no credits... just a funny little scene.

Besides the fact that the son of the person you killed showing up for revenge being cliched and cheesy, what if Wrex killed him? Does the son show up on Tuchanka despite the unlikelihood of getting close to Wrex? If after Shepard, how do they know where to find him at any given time anyway? Or do they just wait on some random world hoping?

-Shiala should have been a stand-in for Elizabeth what's-her-last-name, or vice versa. Not only did they have similar general causes (somewhat attractive 'young' women who regret having harmed the colonists but then helps Shepard), but Elizabeth couldn't die if you wanted her to. The 'generic nameless colonist' was insulting all the more because there was a perfectly applicable substitute.

So the insult is the colonist not giving a name? Despite the situation playing out identically otherwise? If you are quick to take insult of course you will feel insulted.

-Rachni Queen Ambassador, if you killed her, could have been replaced by Rachni survivor/relative of someone who died from Rachni. Whether a survivor from the Rachni Wars, or a relative of those who served and died, or even a survivor from Noveria, there's really no objective reason that someone who would have appreciated Shepard's act couldn't have said thanks (or not: moralist protestor?).

How in blazes would they know? Pretty much everyone who surives the initial Rachni drone assault attacks you under orders. Benezia and her troops all attack you, and there is no reason to believe that anyone else around the facility wouldn't be at least partially indoctrinated. Those the rest of the station didn't see any Rachni, and although they might thank you for saving them against Geth, they are more likely to be just thankful that you are gone and no longer investigating. They never came under attack so why would they feel the need to thank you?

-I'd have made Lorik Quin a stand-in/alternative to Gianna Parsini as a quest giver/garage pass cameo, but that's as much as for Lorik as anything else. Had there been an alternative to the Rachni Queen ambassador 20 steps away, this mid-mission cameo wouldn't have stood out as much as it did.

Quinn lives either way too though. He benefits from paragons too, so why wouldn't he show up either way?

-Rana Thanopolis (the Virmire Survivor) should, at the very least, have been replaced by a data terminal/pad which could have told us the same things about Okeer's experiments. The loss of the information, rather than the cameo, is the stronger annoyance.

That one I agree with you on, but then I didn't like the handling of that scene at all. She was definately trying to help Shepard with the information, so why did Shepard simply assume she was up to no good? She might yet turn out to be at least partially indoctinated though (from Vermire), which means that the Reapers might end up with genophage information.

-Renegade Council should at least have been introduced, if only to dismiss us personally. Ungrateful Human-dominated Council to stand in for the ungrateful Paragon Council for some equilibrium.

You get additional dialogue from Anderson though in which he tells you that the new councellors are scard of you but that you are so popular that he can reinstate you and ignore them on that.

I agree that if Udina is chosen you should have been meeting with him though instead of Anderson. Given your appearant popularity in the renegade playthroughs it seems unlikely that Udina wouldn't be trying to capitalize on that.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Overruled by narrative impetus and codecies emphasizing heightened Council losses in addition to the Destiny Ascension in Renegade path.

We know that the Asari hand over their responsiblities to the Turians, but don't know if that means less ships. The Turians take war a lot more seriously than the Asari do, so might be quicker and more willing to replace ships and might fight better as well.

The Alliance takes considerably less losses (since they hang back and don't engage at all, really) and we don't have actual total loss figures from the two scenarios.

Also, if we find a non-fleet means of winning in ME3, it really could mean that everyone except the Alliance gets devestated, but that we win anyway, which would mean that the pro human style renegades would really come out ahead.

Secondary objectives, Dean. Got to remember those secondary objectives.

[Bailyn242]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Overruled by narrative impetus and codecies emphasizing heightened Council losses in addition to the Destiny Ascension in Renegade path.

We know that the Asari hand over their responsiblities to the Turians, but don't know if that means less ships. The Turians take war a lot more seriously than the Asari do, so might be quicker and more willing to replace ships and might fight better as well.

The Alliance takes considerably less losses (since they hang back and don't engage at all, really) and we don't have actual total loss figures from the two scenarios.

Also, if we find a non-fleet means of winning in ME3, it really could mean that everyone except the Alliance gets devestated, but that we win anyway, which would mean that the pro human style renegades would really come out ahead.

Secondary objectives, Dean. Got to remember those secondary objectives.

This one could very well be a paragon action that ends up hurting come ME3... without the renegade choice of letting the council die the Turians don't build Dreadnaughts over and above the treaty numbers so the Turians should be weaker in a Paragon import than a renegade one.

[Moiaussi]

Also the 'saved' Council could be already at least partially indoctrinated. Saren certainly had more than enough access to them. It would explain them grounding Shepard when it looked like he was catching up to Saren and the change of heart regarding the Reapers in ME2.

[Dean_the_Young]

Bailyn242 wrote...

Thanks Dean, that's more like what I was hoping for even if I don't agree with all of them.

First off, I really dislike the idea that you get a pass via some random replacement person as filler since you killed whomever it was supposed to be. There should be consequences for taking the easy way and just shooting people or letting your team do it. So in that case Fist is off the board and so are the Rachni.

And if it were a side-quest, I'd certainly agree with you. But then, these weren't side-quests. These were unavoidable story choices. People have a right to see their story choices reflected, not simply absent, especially when alternatives exist or can be made. The Rachni Ambassador is just as random a replacement person for if you let the Queen live: a random 'hey, you destroyed the Rachni person' is just as, not less, reflective of the story choice. The Consequence is that the Rachni are dead: the content is the reflection of it in various forms. It would be a false delimma to argue that the Rachni themselves (or their random replacement person representatives) is the only medium for content.

Consequences in terms of story environment are not necessarily the same as in terms of gameplay ,or story absence. When ready-alternatives do exist and the choice of cameo representatives is and of itself an arbitrary process, such as the Lorik to Noveria's Gianna or Elizabeth to Feros' Shiala, the primary reliance on killable-characters is a deliberate choice, even though other alternatives exist.

Fist is a minor issue compared to the larger choices, not least because the Fist cameo isn't in a major nexus of main-quest cameos, or a quest-giver in and of himself.

If I recall correctly wasn't it Liz's mom who was the person on Illium in Shiala's place?

No.

I'm torn on the datapad / Rana Thanopolis thing. It might be interesting but again, what it sounds like is the removal of the consequences of your actions. Shoot first ask questions later works but it leaves you short on answers, in the real world as well as the game world. Why in a non-metagame sense should that be required?

Because we are talking about a game design as a whole. Because Grunt's (Okeer's) recruitment mission is and should be fundamentally about Grunt and Okeer, not an ME1 character who's life or death is irrelevant to the focus of the mission at hand. Rana is not critical to Grunt or Okeer's characters in concept or execution, nor is her appearance there, in that lab, a natural or even required presence.

Talking about the Paragon/Renegade system design is impossible without 'metagaming' because even the concept of such is a metagaming concept. Talking about the structure of the game design is even more so.

Ultimately, the question that needs to be asked is 'why should there be any other source for what Rana can tell us,' but 'why is the game designed so that only Rana can tell us something that is fundamental to the characters being developed?' And the answer is... not really a good one for an equal game design. Rana could have been replaced by some mook-Krogan scientist who, after giving Shepard the information (thus developing Okeer and Grunt), gets himself killed and thus resolving a variable without losing on character development.

AKA, story content.

Seriously, I've seen quite a few posts in this thread pointing to Casey's quote about renegades vs paragons but none are willing to address the difference between shoot first and I wanna question this guy / I might need this guy later. Where's the consequence? Come to think of it, it isn't a reward for Paragons at all, it is a readily apparent consequence that people are complaining about.

Reconsider why certain consequences are required and why some are expected. There are many different arguments about many different examples, and confusing them together will only confuse you about their focus. Many people switch between arguments without realizing it.

Most people, quite reasonably, believe 'consequences' should be in terms of lore variations and character reactions, but not at a loss of content. That is a 'consquence', but of a different sort, in the same that if your disk breaks it's a 'consequence' but that doesn't mean it's the kind intended. Content should be changed, but not cut: reflective, not absent. To be absent is not a requirement to be reflective, nor is cut content 'equal' without additional equivalent content in some other area.

I suppose that the devs could have had Fist take a shot at Shepard instead of whining that I had time to make him miserable.

Actually, I think that was one of the better ones. Fist is just about the only person ungrateful for a Paragon's salvation. It just needed... something as a reflection of the Renegade. Various people (including myself) would have even been pleased had Fist's death been brought up in content by Bailey or Citadel News.

I even suppose that the devs could have put in a couple minor "oops shouldn't have trusted that guy" moments into ME2 but who and where? Other than Fist, Helena and Rana I'm coming up blank as to who I trusted that could have backfired on my decision off the top of my head.

I could read off a list of most the choices in ME2, if you'd like. Most of them are pretty well balanced in terms of measured risk for both options. Personally, I favor raising Legion up, though Bioware beat us pretty hard with the 'who cares about proof' stick for that one.

Brainwashing Geth could make peace with the Quarians impossible. Saving the racist Turian during Thane's loyalty could make him worse than if you killed him (though I'd actually make that dependent on the nature of the Council, myself). Saving Mordin's assistant, getting Miranda involved in Oriana's life, hiding the evidence at Tali's trial, Samara vis-a-vis Shepard come ME3 (depending on how she handles Arrival)...


Mind you, these are all 'coulds', with no real foreshadowing up to this point, while we most certainly can judge Mass Effect 1 and 2's handling of events and the foreshadowing going into 3.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 juin 2011 - 08:29 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Overruled by narrative impetus and codecies emphasizing heightened Council losses in addition to the Destiny Ascension in Renegade path.

We know that the Asari hand over their responsiblities to the Turians, but don't know if that means less ships. The Turians take war a lot more seriously than the Asari do, so might be quicker and more willing to replace ships and might fight better as well.

The Asari handing over responsibilities to the Turians doesn't imply they lost more ships. The Alliance codex about how the Alliance left the Council races to die and devastated their militaries when such did not occur in the Paragon playthrough implies they lost more ships, especially when the Renegade choice leaves not only the Destiny Ascension dead, but the Geth fleet to still be handled by the remnants of the Council fleet fighting beside the

Since the Geth did not disappear, nor were they able to turn around against the Alliance attacking Sovereign, AND there were still Council forces engaged with the Geth, who are NOT wiped out by Alliance reinforcements in the Renegade scenario...

The Alliance takes considerably less losses (since they hang back and don't engage at all, really) and we don't have actual total loss figures from the two scenarios.

The Alliance doesn't lose some of what it lost in the Paragon option, which is already far less than the Destiny Ascension alone.

Also, if we find a non-fleet means of winning in ME3, it really could mean that everyone except the Alliance gets devestated, but that we win anyway, which would mean that the pro human style renegades would really come out ahead.

Secondary objectives, Dean. Got to remember those secondary objectives.

Primary arguments, Moiaussi. You have to stop forgetting those primary arguments on hand.

[Dave of Canada]

Bailyn242 wrote...

If I recall correctly wasn't it Liz's mom who was the person on Illium in Shiala's place?

Nope, random nameless colonist that exists regardless of you having killed all the colonists or not and complains about the Feros colonists suffering problems. Which completely ignored my Renegade's "kill them all incase the Thorian spores have long reaching effects" view.

I'm torn on the datapad / Rana Thanopolis thing. It might be interesting but again, what it sounds like is the removal of the consequences of your actions. Shoot first ask questions later works but it leaves you short on answers, in the real world as well as the game world. Why in a non-metagame sense should that be required?

Exposition in the sequel of a game should never be required to make an unrelated decision earlier in the first one, though. The intel from Rana provides interesting thoughts on Okeer and stuff, though if you'd kill her you would never know what Okeer was really doing and you'd simply be missing out on that little bit of exposition.

It's one of those situations where exposition should be available to everybody, maybe by different means. 

Seriously, I've seen quite a few posts in this thread pointing to Casey's quote about renegades vs paragons but none are willing to address the difference between shoot first and I wanna question this guy / I might need this guy later. Where's the consequence? Come to think of it, it isn't a reward for Paragons at all, it is a readily apparent consequence that people are complaining about.

There's multiple people with the current system (which I'll rant on in a future blog) but the biggest ones is that the game (usually) offers you two alternatives to one situation:

• Do you not trust this person and kill them?
• Do you trust this person, who might be lying to you, and release them?

The consequences of the first decision is that said person is dead, though there's no benefits from it. The galaxy moves on completely ignoring their existance, which shouldn't exist. You killed somebody or something, some people out there should react to it. Negatively or Positively.

The consequences of the second decision is that you're gambling that the person you're releasing wasn't lying to you, that you've proven yourself too trusting. The difficulty here is that the game constantly shows everybody you release as reforming, becoming saints or promising to assist you later.

At that point, why does the second decision even need consequences? When everybody turns into saints, doesn't the logic behind the first decision become moot and the second one become more favorable?

I don't metagame, it's possibly the only reason I'm still playing Renegade, though the entire aspect of one side having everything (cameos, ect) and having every decision going right for them hurts the game as a whole. There should be benefits and consequences for both sides, where somebody who'd want the "happy ending" would have to metagame between both morality bars.

A fun example: Zaeed's loyalty mission. Shouldn't completing the mission (Zaeed's loyalty) be only possible by achieving what he wants, not saving the workers which fits the Paragon's morality? The idea that Zaeed would suddenly become loyal to Shepard who pointed a gun at his head confuses me.

Assuming you're never supposed to lose loyalty with anybody for your decision, you can talk Zaeed into become loyal, though similar situations for the Renegade player doesn't exist. Revealing Tali's father to the Admirals (though I found that odd to be the Renegade decision) has no intimidate option to receive Tali's loyalty afterward.

Consequences and benefits are far too one sided for me.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 juin 2011 - 08:47 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

We know that the Asari hand over their responsiblities to the Turians, but don't know if that means less ships. The Turians take war a lot more seriously than the Asari do, so might be quicker and more willing to replace ships and might fight better as well.[/quote]The Asari handing over responsibilities to the Turians doesn't imply they lost more ships. The Alliance codex about how the Alliance left the Council races to die and devastated their militaries when such did not occur in the Paragon playthrough implies they lost more ships, especially when the Renegade choice leaves not only the Destiny Ascension dead, but the Geth fleet to still be handled by the remnants of the Council fleet fighting beside the

Since the Geth did not disappear, nor were they able to turn around against the Alliance attacking Sovereign, AND there were still Council forces engaged with the Geth, who are NOT wiped out by Alliance reinforcements in the Renegade scenario...[/quote]

If the Alliance took sufficiently few losses though the overall loss totals could still be lower with the 'concentrate on Saren' option.

For me though I pretty much always save the DA simply because it means engaging the enemy rather than just stitting back in reserve. In other words, I engage for tactical/renegade reasons rather than any worry about Council or Asari lives. If the overall battle is lost, then we all lose, and giving Geth ships free shots at allies just means we are losing overall firepower faster, meaning less available to concentrate on Sovereign.

If there was to be any change to accomodate renegades, I think it should be that, the ability to save the DA for tactical reasons, with a renegade bonus and a line such as 'We are not here just to stand and watch. We are here to defeat the enemy. Get those ships in there and firing NOW."

[quote]The Alliance doesn't lose some of what it lost in the Paragon option, which is already far less than the Destiny Ascension alone.[/quote]

We only know what was lost directly saving the Ascension. We don't know how many additional ships were lost while concentrating on Sovereign prematurly with the bulk of the Geth fleet still on our six. Or alternatively, how many are lost head to head with the rest of the Geth fleet. We see so little of the battle and get no comparative 'final results.' It is likely that less is lost from the paragon option, but as I have said, I think there should be a renegade option to save the DA.

[quote]Primary arguments, Moiaussi. You have to stop forgetting those primary arguments on hand.
[/quote]

I'm not., but secondary objectives should always be kept in mind. The citadel isn't even open at the time of the decision, so it really is mostly one of secondary objectives. We also have no reason to believe that the Reapers are on their way anyway yet (since everything we know so far is that they need Sovereign to open the citadel for them).

[Bailyn242]

Exposition in the sequel of a game should never be required to make an unrelated decision earlier in the first one, though. The intel from Rana provides interesting thoughts on Okeer and stuff, though if you'd kill her you would never know what Okeer was really doing and you'd simply be missing out on that little bit of exposition.

Dave, I don't see that you gain enough information to complain about it, certainly not enough to require that the information be delivered by different, yet connected, means. It could easily been handled by Grunt aboard the Normandy later in a dialog option available to both.

I can see the concern about losing critical content but most of the complaints seem to be more about lipgloss than real meat of the story. Heck even in Gianna's cameo you really don't get anything special other than 50xp. The store discount that this merchant has is available regardless, unlike Conrad's cameo, and you don't get the extra upgrade as it is a fake after all is said and done.

Of all the ones that you have specifically brought up only Lorik Quin was the only one that didn't remove all consequence of your actions as a renegade. That is the point that your proposal doesn't seem to take into account. It sounds like you are saying that I killed X but here is how I can get all the stuff I miss because I did it. That is the very essence of the argument and it irks me that people won't acknowledge it. On top of that it has been about a tiny bit of extra content.... we're talking about mere minutes, as in less time than it takes me to pinch a loaf after eating an especially large meal.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 10 juin 2011 - 09:28 .

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It is just lipgloss in as far as ME2's story is concerned, but do you know what it is the "meat" of? It's the meat of the import feature. It is what sets Mass Effect apart from other game series.

"Import feature" We (ME2) have dismissed that claim.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mesina2 wrote...

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.

"All he seems to care about is public relations with the rest of the Council."  -Anderson on Councilor Udina. 

What same result?

You still don't hear about him doing anything.

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

Not a Paragon/Renegade choice.

You mean like Rachni husks what Paragons get?

So do Renegades thusfar.

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.

Nothing has been shown saying you'll get anything... all you get is total squad disapproval and Cerberus against you.

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.

Lol there is no Council present for Renegade players.  You can't say anything to them whatsoever.  And you can talk to Anderson for as long as you want.  Additionally, you talk to Anderson along with the Council as a Paragon.  So same amount of time, but more people to talk to.

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

Renegades didn't win by a long shot.  Council's not there (there for Paragons), No Council blessing (blessing for Paragons).  Spectre status given on a technicality and against Council's wish (Paragons get it with the Council's blessing).  Neither believes the story of the Reapers and Anderson sides with both choices so that's a moot point.  Paragons are the clear winners here.

This is not even mentioning the fact that more lives were lost in sacrificing the DA than trying to save it.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 12:45 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

If the Alliance took sufficiently few losses though the overall loss totals could still be lower with the 'concentrate on Saren' option.

Overall losses are surpassed by the Destiny Ascension alone, while the codex, characters, choice-setup, all emphasize far greater Council-species losses than are found in the Paragon setup.

If there was to be any change to accomodate renegades, I think it should be that, the ability to save the DA for tactical reasons, with a renegade bonus and a line such as 'We are not here just to stand and watch. We are here to defeat the enemy. Get those ships in there and firing NOW."

Who wants to change the Destiny Ascension scenario?

It's the ME2 handling, not the ME1 handling, people protest.

We only know what was lost directly saving the Ascension. We don't know how many additional ships were lost while concentrating on Sovereign prematurly with the bulk of the Geth fleet still on our six.

We know that Human forces were spared, because we left the Council fleets alone to hold the Geth.

Or alternatively, how many are lost head to head with the rest of the Geth fleet.

Enough to render the Alliance incapable of moving significant forces in ME2, as opposed unwilling because of prioritizing holding onto the Council.

We see so little of the battle and get no comparative 'final results.' It is likely that less is lost from the paragon option, but as I have said, I think there should be a renegade option to save the DA.

Less is lost. The Paragon intervention saves the Council forces, as well as the Destiny Ascension, in exchange for increased casualties for the Human force. The Renegades leave the geth and Council forces to fight, leaving the Destiny Ascension to die (eclipsing all Human losses in the Paragon route), while removing Geth from devastating and crippling the other forces.

In a Paragon universe, the Destiny Ascension, which outweighs all Human losses on its own, is saved. Also, the other species are not devastated by the Geth.

In a Renegade universe, the Council forces are forced to deal with the Geth, while Humanity's primary losses are from focusing on Sovereign. Council losses are far greater, allowing Human its coup.


Old, old news.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

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.

Safe/low-risk in a high-consequence scenario is a logical choice.  Wasn't talking about anything else at the time.  The Paragon option put everything at risk to pull it off.

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.

Missing the point again.  Any choice can have a myriad of consequences... your "intention" could always fail.. or they can end up smelling like roses.  The consequence of any decision is not up to the player and not set in stone simply because a decision is made.  The Paragon choice at the end of ME1 could've easily led to Sovereign taking over the station and summoning the Reapers because the Council was made the higher priority.  You're going to have to step back from this more and realise how choice and consequence works.

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.

Then you need to read and contribute to the points brought up... because we've been talking about them.  It's an ongoing discussion on both here and the "Punishing Paragons" thread.

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.

This is not about "right" and "wrong."  If you would've read what I've been saying... you'd know I already said this.  If you take some time to read and understand what I'm saying, this will make more sense to you.  Thusfar Renegades have less content (which isn't the same as fewer "problems" to deal with).  I'd love to see the specifics of where your smart money is though.

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.

If the Paragon choices remain the "best outcome" button in ME3, then the goal of these rants will have failed to stop it in time.  And instead we would be talking about how it's happened across all 3 games... instead of just the first 2 so far.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 01:16 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Bailyn242 wrote...
1. Objection, facts not in evidence. In other words prove it that more people die with the death of the council.

Would "recorded" make you feel better?

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?

Would "as presented in the game" make you feel better?

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.

Only if they actually do it that way... but that has no bearing of what's presented in the past 2 games regarding which outcome has been "the best" one (which is consistently the Paragon option).

That's why Casey's quote is what I wanted to hear, because it sounds possible that ME3 could stop favoring Paragons on everything.

[Saaziel]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

That's why Casey's quote is what I wanted to hear, because it sounds possible that ME3 could stop favoring Paragons on everything.

It will change nothing.

In twelve months from now , people will still complain: Anderson is a playable squadmate on Earth , Udina isn't = Paragon favouritism. Alien council gives 14. 53 second speech , Human council 13. 47 = Paragon Favouritism. Paragon ending is more challenging , therefore the better content = Paragon Favouritism . Only 1 billion extra lives saved isn't worth the Renegade options = Paragon favouritism. That Salarian on Illium looks at Renegades funny = Paragon Favouritism.

And so on and so forth.

Modifié par Saaziel, 11 juin 2011 - 02:06 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saaziel wrote...
It will change nothing.

In twelve months from now , people will still complain: Anderson is a playable squadmate on Earth , Udina isn't = Paragon favouritism. Alien council gives 14. 53 second speech , Human council 13. 47 = Paragon Favouritism. Paragon ending is more challenging , therefore the better content = Paragon Favouritism . Only 1 billion extra lives saved isn't worth the Renegade options = Paragon favouritism. That Salarian on Illium looks at Renegades funny = Paragon Favouritism.

And so on and so forth.

If Paragon choices are consistently the favored choice, then nothing will change.  If a Renegade choice actually demonstrates a benefit over the Paragon one, then there would definitely be a change.  Because then there's not one "best outcome" button.. and the arguement will be a moot point.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Overall losses are surpassed by the Destiny Ascension alone, while the codex, characters, choice-setup, all emphasize far greater Council-species losses than are found in the Paragon setup.

The codex can't emphasize greater anything, since it is independant of the other scenario and thus has no basis of comparason.

Who wants to change the Destiny Ascension scenario?

It's the ME2 handling, not the ME1 handling, people protest.

The protest is the results for paragons vs the results for renegades. When I point out non-aligned decisions, those complaining insist such decisions don't count because they are unaligned. If there had been a renegade option to save the DA in ME1, it would have forstalled the protest.

We know that Human forces were spared, because we left the Council fleets alone to hold the Geth.

The Geth didn't just disappear in a puff of logic. They were still there when the fleet was firing on Sovereign. If they were able to overwhelm the Council fleet (which is suggested strongly by the DA being in trouble), then they would presumably have turned on the Alliance with the Council ships no longer distracting them or drawing fire.

Enough to render the Alliance incapable of moving significant forces in ME2, as opposed unwilling because of prioritizing holding onto the Council.

Or that could be how it is being spun, with the Alliance government wanting to keep our ships in reserve in case of renewed Geth agression, or just to avoid casualties or the standard overblown fear of Terminus. In ME1, the Normandy seemed to be asked to do rather a lot. Other than the Citadel battle it wasn't clear how much of the fleet was deployed in the Traverse at all. Of course if the Alliance really did have only 200 ships at the time....

Less is lost. The Paragon intervention saves the Council forces, as well as the Destiny Ascension, in exchange for increased casualties for the Human force. The Renegades leave the geth and Council forces to fight, leaving the Destiny Ascension to die (eclipsing all Human losses in the Paragon route), while removing Geth from devastating and crippling the other forces.

In a Paragon universe, the Destiny Ascension, which outweighs all Human losses on its own, is saved. Also, the other species are not devastated by the Geth.

In a Renegade universe, the Council forces are forced to deal with the Geth, while Humanity's primary losses are from focusing on Sovereign. Council losses are far greater, allowing Human its coup.

What other species came under attack from the Geth at all? Where is there any evidence that they suddenly hit other empires when they hit the Council? That seems an innane time to suddenly split one's forces. And part of the coup is temporary political instability from the sudden lack of Council representation.

And there is still the point that the renegade option is a better result for human supremist paragons.