380 réponses à ce sujet

[Labrev]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

What is this I don't even...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

No, it couldn't have. By that time, Shepard had uploaded the data file into the master-control unit and Saren was dealt with. If Sovereign could have done it himself, Saren wouldn't have been needed in the first place. It was simply a matter of finishing off Sovereign.

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

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

I haven't seen such points in this thread about that and I'm not going to read some other nonsense thread.

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

Please enlighten me how "Paragon = Best Outcome" moreso than Renegade because I haven't found a case of that.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

Convenient to make it an issue of "you don't get what I mean; because if you did, you would."

As for specifics, just a couple of examples...

Rachni Queen -- if saved: (+) they help you vs. the Reapers; ( - ) some are turned into husks; ( - ) the Queen is indoctrinated again. if killed: ( - ) no ally, (+) none of the above problems to deal with.
Collector Base -- if saved: (+) Cerberus helpful against Reapers; ( - ) Cerberus a tougher foe. if destroyed ( - ) Cerberus useless against Reapers; (+) Cerberus a less formiddable nemesis.

Speculation, at this point, but is it really that hard a concept to understand. BW is not going to take sides in their own game, that notion is simply absurd. From the snipet you posted in the OP, Casey was asked about dealing with "those" consequences. Not simply "paragon" or "renegade" consequences, but consequences for all "those" decisions. That clearly tells us that there will be pros and cons for both sides. (And yet, you still ended your post by complaining "OMG PARAGONZ!")

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

Maybe it's for the best that you don't see the human council. If they do in fact make an appearance in ME3, the writers will have made characters that fit the story better rather than comitting to ones that they forced just for a small scene in ME2.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

At this point, the developers have probaby already figured out the entire story, including all the positives and negatives that come with all the major decisions that were made. These threads won't stop anything. All we can do is wait and see what happens.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

What is this I don't even...

Think about it, I said "logical" for a reason (and it wasn't to put words in your mouth).  And the Paragon option (for the Council, the topic at hand) did put all life at risk to pull off.
  

No, it couldn't have. By that time, Shepard had uploaded the data file into the master-control unit and Saren was dealt with. If Sovereign could have done it himself, Saren wouldn't have been needed in the first place. It was simply a matter of finishing off Sovereign.

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

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

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

Like with Morinth?

I haven't seen such points in this thread about that and I'm not going to read some other nonsense thread.

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

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

Convenient to make it an issue of "you don't get what I mean; because if you did, you would."

Actually it was an issue of you not reading what I actually said and making claims I never mentioned... and oh look you did it again.  And I said take the time to understand it... in other words, give this some effort for why I'm bringing this up instead of just responding to your own pre-concieved notions.

Speculation, at this point, but is it really that hard a concept to understand. BW is not going to take sides in their own game, that notion is simply absurd. From the snipet you posted in the OP, Casey was asked about dealing with "those" consequences. Not simply "paragon" or "renegade" consequences, but consequences for all "those" decisions. That clearly tells us that there will be pros and cons for both sides. (And yet, you still ended your post by complaining "OMG PARAGONZ!")

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

Did they drop the ball on content? Sure.

There we go, that's all I'm saying... we're getting somewhere.

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

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

Maybe it's for the best that you don't see the human council. If they do in fact make an appearance in ME3, the writers will have made characters that fit the story better rather than comitting to ones that they forced just for a small scene in ME2.

I would've appreciated seeing them.

At this point, the developers have probaby already figured out the entire story, including all the positives and negatives that come with all the major decisions that were made. These threads won't stop anything. All we can do is wait and see what happens.

It's already been delayed and I doubt all of the lines have been recorded yet.  It's never too late to make revisions, shape DLC, etc.

But to restate, the reason I made this thread is to state that they indeed may not favor Paragons choices over Renegades across the entire series... even if it's still possible (if not somewhat likely).


EDIT:  this may be the biggest reply post I've ever done on these forums, lol

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 07:24 .

[tjzsf]

Bailyn242 wrote...

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.

Way to fail at comprehension?
I'm saying that if you want to metagame, you should always pick paragon. If you want to roleplay and think throught he cost/benefits....you shoudl also always pick paragon for the major decisions.
It doesn't matter that ME3 hasn't come out yet, the gripe is that based on the facts given, the paragon option makes more sense than the renegade one, and that sometimes renegade means well-intentioned extremist and other times it means jackass for the sake of being a jackass.

Also, interrupts don't count, as 1. my complaints have been only about the major story-changing decisions and 2. interrupts are essentially free morality points that do not hurt you to get. Since your charm/intimidate is determined by number of points you have / number of points you could have gotten, interrupts are basically free additions to one of your bars that don't subtract from your other bar (unlike dialogue options like approve/disapprove of criminal-beatings or major decisions like rewrite/destroy geth).

Also also, there are some decisions that are indeed fair to both sides. I consider Bring Down the Sky to be one of those - sacrifice the hostages or let Balak go is a choice where you can justify both (even though I personally lean towards the latter, I can understand those who choose the former). However, those are an equal plus to both paragon and renegade and therefore do not correct the imbalance towards paragon decisions being better.

If I wish to "win" the arugment based on what I myself am arguing, I don't have to show anything about
the end results, all I have to show is that the argument for making the
paragon choice is better than the renegade one. Are *you* ready?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

So far, there's been no "greater good" that's been "sacrificed" for.  If Renegades are indeed "sacrificing for the greater good" like Casey Hudson suggests... where is this "greater" good compared to the Paragon choice?

The first 2 games show no such thing anywhere, ever... lol

Paragons have thusfar achieved the "greater/greatest good" without "sacrificing" anything over the Renegade choice.  For the first 2 games, that's just how it is.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 05:22 .

[Bailyn242]

tjzsf wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

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.

Way to fail at comprehension?
I'm saying that if you want to metagame, you should always pick paragon. If you want to roleplay and think throught he cost/benefits....you shoudl also always pick paragon for the major decisions.
It doesn't matter that ME3 hasn't come out yet, the gripe is that based on the facts given, the paragon option makes more sense than the renegade one, and that sometimes renegade means well-intentioned extremist and other times it means jackass for the sake of being a jackass.

Also, interrupts don't count, as 1. my complaints have been only about the major story-changing decisions and 2. interrupts are essentially free morality points that do not hurt you to get. Since your charm/intimidate is determined by number of points you have / number of points you could have gotten, interrupts are basically free additions to one of your bars that don't subtract from your other bar (unlike dialogue options like approve/disapprove of criminal-beatings or major decisions like rewrite/destroy geth).

Also also, there are some decisions that are indeed fair to both sides. I consider Bring Down the Sky to be one of those - sacrifice the hostages or let Balak go is a choice where you can justify both (even though I personally lean towards the latter, I can understand those who choose the former). However, those are an equal plus to both paragon and renegade and therefore do not correct the imbalance towards paragon decisions being better.

If I wish to "win" the arugment based on what I myself am arguing, I don't have to show anything about
the end results, all I have to show is that the argument for making the
paragon choice is better than the renegade one. Are *you* ready?

Major Story changing decisions? Council, Wrex, Anderson/Udina, BDts are the major story decisions from ME1. You get Wreav if Wrex dies (not a major difference yet), the Council has so far been a minor scene in ME2 and the paragon option might leave the fleets weaker since the renegade option has the Turians breaking treaty and building additional Dreadnaughts beyond treaty limits. Anderson is no longer the Councillor if they stick to Retribution as canon (read wasted decision, you still end up with Udina.) Now BDtS, you choose one way and Kate Bowman sends an email and she speaks at a memorial you hear about on the news, the other way no email (she is dead) and you hear about her father leading the same memorial on the news (difference a single email, non story critical fluff.) ME2's choices cannot be verified what effect they will carry into the next game until it comes out.

So again, what I've been reading so far amounts to I killed someone so they can't send me an email or waste my time with minor fluff. Hey, you gots more than I did.

Now, were's the consequence for being a dick and killing indiscriminately if every time you do this the dev simply give you a different cameo. Of all the ones Dean suggested (I didn't disagree with all of them,) the Lorik Quin for Gianna Parasini one would have made sense and wouldn't have removed consequence. That is the critical factor. As frustrated as you are I would find the game childish and immature if there was no consequences for indiscriminate killing.

Now, go back and review all the suggestions you have for renegade replacements for cameos or emails that the paragon got and determine if giving the renegade something in each case would have destroyed the consequence element of the original decision. Then ask if there was enough additional important information given to paragons to offset the loss of the consequence of the renegade option?

Now before you get your undergarments in a knot, I'll admit that there could have been some negatives to a couple of paragon choices but there weren't many. I suppose that Helena Blake could actually be a criminal after all, rather than a reformed social worker on Omega, but for that matter she could still be lying in ME2.

Of course there was a Paragon action that burns us in ME1 but I have yet to see it mentioned in here, Nassana Dantius tricks paragon Shepard into killing her sister and helping her cover her own criminal liability. That one I wanted to go back slap her in irons and drop her off in Palin's office just down the hall.

Another Paragon action from ME1 that backfires (sort of) is Coombs, he flat tells Paragon Shep he's gunning for him in (again) an email.

Rachni Queen? Well, she's dead and no one outside of your crew and the Council even know that you found her and killed her so how is someone going to thank you for it unless you announce to the galaxy at large that there may be more eggs floating in space in derelict ships.

So show me where you could insert the Renegade cameo without removing the sense of consequence for your choices? Face it the devs made some darnn good choices and the only change I can see that would work and was proposed by Dean was Lorik Quin. One mistake from the mass of choices is a pretty good hit rate.

Paragons still got screwed with the entire forced ME2 plot. From what I've read from Renegades, most of you loved that, TIM is mastermind, TIM is humanity and so am I. You guys got rewarded big time there. The rest of us had to suck it up and play while feeling disgusted with the whole situation.

[Bailyn242]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

So far, there's been no "greater good" that's been "sacrificed" for.  If Renegades are indeed "sacrificing for the greater good" like Casey Hudson suggests... where is this "greater" good compared to the Paragon choice?

The first 2 games show no such thing anywhere, ever... lol

Paragons have thusfar achieved the "greater/greatest good" without "sacrificing" anything over the Renegade choice.  For the first 2 games, that's just how it is.

I think that was the real mistake. How he phrased it, he should have put it win at all costs versus, there are some prices I refuse to pay paragon. Both have their own risk reward elements but logically the paragon takes the greater risk in hopes of a greater reward and from what I've seen there will be costs assigned to both decision trees. Heck if they do this right and you want to meta a "perfect" playthrough you would not max either paragon or renegade at the end in order to maximize the forces you have for taking back Earth.

[Rip504]

I will not read this thread as I most likely disagree. But I will say Mr Gogeta34 quit assuming Casey Hudson ment renegade when he mention sacrificing for the greater good. Renegades play for themselves. Paragons fight for the greater good. Renegades are unwilling to sacrifice their beliefs for the greater good. He was very vague and doesn't strengthen your argument much in my opinion.

[Bailyn242]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

Major Story changing decisions? Council, Wrex, Anderson/Udina...

You get Wrex and Anderson/Udina even if you don't import. There's no difference what-so-ever.


If you're going to keep harping on the "You killed someone so the consequences of your actions is no cameo or reference in the second game" then are you going to start harping on Paragons for not suffering "consequences" for releasing dangerous criminals/lifeforms?

Now before you get your undergarments in a knot, I'll admit that there could have been some negatives to a couple of paragon choices but there weren't many. I suppose that Helena Blake could actually be a criminal after all, rather than a reformed social worker on Omega, but for that matter she could still be lying in ME2. 

Of course there was a Paragon action that burns us in ME1 but I have yet to see it mentioned in here, Nassana Dantius tricks paragon Shepard into killing her sister and helping her cover her own criminal liability. That one I wanted to go back slap her in irons and drop her off in Palin's office just down the hall.

Another Paragon action from ME1 that backfires (sort of) is Coombs, he flat tells Paragon Shep he's gunning for him in (again) an email.

Rachni Queen? Well, she's dead and no one outside of your crew and the Council even know that you found her and killed her so how is someone going to thank you for it unless you announce to the galaxy at large that there may be more eggs floating in space in derelict ships.

So show me where you could insert the Renegade cameo without removing the sense of consequence for your choices? Face it the devs made some darnn good choices and the only change I can see that would work and was proposed by Dean was Lorik Quin. One mistake from the mass of choices is a pretty good hit rate.

Paragons still got screwed with the entire forced ME2 plot. From what I've read from Renegades, most of you loved that, TIM is mastermind, TIM is humanity and so am I. You guys got rewarded big time there. The rest of us had to suck it up and play while feeling disgusted with the whole situation.

I thought I'd better repost that part of my last post since it appears you ignored it completely.

Paragons did get some negatives in ME2, not as many as they could have but the lion's share of the major decisions have yet to be resolved. Sure, the devs could have forced a couple more negatives on paragons but point of fact they did have some paragon consequences. Elnora was a paragon/renegade choice and if you chose the paragon option she gets away with murder. Consequence.

Rewrite or destroy the heretics may very well cost us. Either in making it harder to recruit the Quarians (read tripping a civil war within the migrant fleet) or the potential that the heretic runtimes within the body of the Geth spontaneously restoring their compatriots to the old machine beliefs.

Save the Council or let them die is another that will weaken the fleets in ME3 as the Turians stick to treaty limitations on Dreadnaughts with the paragon choice. With the renegade choice you're going to have a larger Turian fleet to back you up, at least more heavy ships if nothing else.

Rachni Queen has yet to be resolved.

etcetera... etcetera...

This is what you refuse to acknowledge, the major decisions have yet to have their impact truly felt. Either you are arguing for more fluff content or you are arguing that their weren't negatives to paragon choices and there obviously were. Coombs, paragons save him and he threatens us because we were forced to work with Cerberus (consequence). Elnora, heck even being paragonish to Conrad leads to his divorce and general homeless dupe wandering the galaxy. If you were a dick to him, he's presumably safe at home and still married.

Of course that just brings home the point that nothing MAJOR was resolved. These were minor fluff to add texture to the story and none of them (those that were remotely resolved) were story critical.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 11 juin 2011 - 08:04 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

I will not read this thread as I most likely disagree. But I will say Mr Gogeta34 quit assuming Casey Hudson ment renegade when he mention sacrificing for the greater good. Renegades play for themselves. Paragons fight for the greater good. Renegades are unwilling to sacrifice their beliefs for the greater good. He was very vague and doesn't strengthen your argument much in my opinion.

lol come on now... of course Casey was referring to Renegades... read the rest of what he said.  The Paragons are the ones that are unwilling to make 'certain sacrifices' (even with the entire galaxy at stake).  There's nothing else it could mean.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 09:04 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Bailyn242 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

So far, there's been no "greater good" that's been "sacrificed" for.  If Renegades are indeed "sacrificing for the greater good" like Casey Hudson suggests... where is this "greater" good compared to the Paragon choice?

The first 2 games show no such thing anywhere, ever... lol

Paragons have thusfar achieved the "greater/greatest good" without "sacrificing" anything over the Renegade choice.  For the first 2 games, that's just how it is.

I think that was the real mistake. How he phrased it, he should have put it win at all costs versus, there are some prices I refuse to pay paragon. Both have their own risk reward elements but logically the paragon takes the greater risk in hopes of a greater reward and from what I've seen there will be costs assigned to both decision trees. Heck if they do this right and you want to meta a "perfect" playthrough you would not max either paragon or renegade at the end in order to maximize the forces you have for taking back Earth.

While that is an interesting arguement, Risk is not the same as sacrifice.

[Rip504]

That's your opinion. I showed you why both sides could assume they sacrifice for the greater good.
Sacrificing Human lives while saving the Citadel is a sacrifice. Renegades sacrifice an alien council while saving the citadel.Is a sacrifice. Both parties have sacrificed something for the greater good they believe in. It is my understanding renegades play for themselves. Securing Human dominance by killing the Alien council seems alot like Cerberus. You are sacrificing aliens for your benefit. Paragon saves them for their benefit. (To help have humanity accepted by all alien races.) Which is the greater good spawned from their sacrifice? It was vague IMO. You make assumptions and base them as facts. Your entire argument is based off of an assumption of what will happen in ME3.


There is no gap of content. Both have consequences for their actions. If you do not acknowledge them or are unhappy with the outcome,that is your problem. Bioware did deliver on their promises period. Paragon is no more favored then Renegade. The outcomes are ment to be the way they are. Complaining you feel as if paragons get better outcomes for helping instead of hurting is slightly ...

You help someone and they help you back,and you are upset by this? Renegade kills someone or something and it doesn't make an appearance in ME2, and you are upset by this? They are dead. How the can their be an appearance? ( Some random pointless character could mention it. Pointless & unreasonable IMO) The situation has been resolved with that character's death.
I see alot of complaining but no reasonable example of how they can stop you from complaining. O by hurting other players to make you happy? That bs non-sense is unreasonable IMO. As Bailyn242 (Good post by the way.) pointed out there are slight negatives for paragon choices. That is not enough for you, You want more.

The human council did make an appearance in ME2. Anderson/Udina are part of that human council. That's making an appearance whether you acknowledge it or not. I'm sorry the entire human council didn't tailor to you.
2-3 mins of content to help make the playthroughs different, and you all are up in arms? It just doesn't make sense to me, sorry but it never will. I think Bioware has implemented THEIR Renegade/Paragon system well,and the way they ment it to be.

You can be upset with it cool,but know from my PoV you are just complaining with no real bases for your argument. So far the only difference between Major plot choices are One has the Rachni, and the other does not. One has a human council,and the other has an alien council. WOW Look at that gap and Paragon favoritism .(Sarcasm)

Modifié par Rip504, 11 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[Bailyn242]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

That's your opinion. I showed you why both sides could assume they sacrifice for the greater good.
Sacrificing Human lives while saving the Citadel is a sacrifice. Renegades sacrifice an alien council while saving the citadel.Is a sacrifice. Both parties have sacrificed something for the greater good they believe in.

Oh sure, but Paragons make sacrifice to their ideology where as Renegades are making sacrifices for actual physical beings.

Horsepucky... renegades weren't playing that way, they wanted to be tough mean badasses. Really...

Lie to them is for must but don't lie to me and expect me to stay silent. The human is right. - Adm. Han'Gerrel migrant fleet.

and this argument...

Saphra Deden wrote...

This is not really a Paragon/Renegade choice. You either take the interrupt, which means you don't really get to think about it, or Shepard lets her go. Frankly, there is no consequence anyway since nothing bad happened when Elnora got away and you don't even know if anything will. 

I'd wager money that she turns up in ME3 and is no longer an Eclispe merc, having been scared straight. It's too bad, because this was a missed opportunity. She ought to have attacked you from behind during the fight with the Eclipse boss at the end. 

...is ludicrous. 

Just because it is an interrupt doesn't mean it isn't a renegade/paragon choice. If you take the interrupt you've chosen to take the renegade action. Renegade action, murderer gets what they deserve (reward). Paragon action, discover you let a murderer escape upstairs (consequence). You can't ignore something because it is an interrupt, it is a choice you make that has rewards or consequences.

Renegades get all the cool interrupts and the Paragons get cool dialog options. We could just as easily say "Renegades get all the really useful interrupts and Paragons got screwed" but we're not are we? We're role playing the characters and using an occasional renegade action to RP within the character.

Renegades get the BEST interogation line of all with Elias Kellum.

Modifié par Bailyn242, 11 juin 2011 - 10:00 .

[jbblue05]

Paragons save the Council at the expense of the Galaxy.  Sacrificing reinforcements needed to take down Sovereign to save three people. humanity joining the council is a side effect.

Renegades focus on Sovereign in the best interest of the Galaxy at the expense of the Council.  Sovereign is the biggest threat to galactic unity, humanity coming out on top is  a side effect

Renegades are NOT selfish.  Give me a legitimate reason Renegades are selfish because I have tons of reasons why Paragons are selfish

[Bailyn242]

Well, another way to look at it is Paragons are wiling to sacrifice in order to hopefully unite the races against the common enemy and renegades say we can do it ourselves and you can either be with us or against us, deal.

That's all in your own internal justifications of your personal story. Now, please tell me why you have to force your story on me please?

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

Well, another way to look at it is Paragons are wiling to sacrifice in order to hopefully unite the races against the common enemy and renegades say we can do it ourselves and you can either be with us or against us, deal.

That's all in your own internal justifications of your personal story. Now, please tell me why you have to force your story on me please?

So why do Paragons want to attack Cerberus prior to finding out they are working with the Reapers?
Paragons want to unite people they like to stop the Reapers.
The enemy of my enemy is an ally the other races will fight the Reapers if they want to survive

[Bailyn242]

jbblue05 wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

Well, another way to look at it is Paragons are wiling to sacrifice in order to hopefully unite the races against the common enemy and renegades say we can do it ourselves and you can either be with us or against us, deal.

That's all in your own internal justifications of your personal story. Now, please tell me why you have to force your story on me please?

So why do Paragons want to attack Cerberus prior to finding out they are working with the Reapers?
Paragons want to unite people they like to stop the Reapers.
The enemy of my enemy is an ally the other races will fight the Reapers if they want to survive

Why do they want to attack Cerberus before finding out? "Really Commander?" <launch probe>

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

Well, another way to look at it is Paragons are wiling to sacrifice in order to hopefully unite the races against the common enemy and renegades say we can do it ourselves and you can either be with us or against us, deal.

That's all in your own internal justifications of your personal story. Now, please tell me why you have to force your story on me please?

So why do Paragons want to attack Cerberus prior to finding out they are working with the Reapers?
Paragons want to unite people they like to stop the Reapers.
The enemy of my enemy is an ally the other races will fight the Reapers if they want to survive

Why do they want to attack Cerberus before finding out? "Really Commander?" <launch probe>

You say Paragons want to unite the galaxy to stop the Reapers, yet they want to destory the only organization that has been aggressively researching ways to stop the Reapers and have been successful

[Bailyn242]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Bailyn242 wrote...

 Now, please tell me why you have to force your story on me please?

You've got it backwards, sweetie. I'm not trying to force ANYTHING on you. However you ARE trying to force YOUR STORY on MINE. You keep telling me that because I killed a character I deserve to have nothing to import into the next game. That's a little unfair, don't you think?

I don't see me as forcing my story on you at all. I'm discussing what has been so far and pointing out that there have been pros and cons to the content that has been delivered to date. 

BW has stated repeatedly that their are going to be consequences to both sides of this debate in ME3.

Frankly, all I've really seen in these threads has sounded more vindictive than anything else. Heck the other thread's title is "Punishing Paragons" for crying out loud. You can't get more demanding than that can you?

[Bailyn242]

jbblue05 wrote...


You say Paragons want to unite the galaxy to stop the Reapers, yet they want to destory the only organization that has been aggressively researching ways to stop the Reapers and have been successful

Again, your personal game story interpretation, not mine.

[jbblue05]

Bailyn242 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...


You say Paragons want to unite the galaxy to stop the Reapers, yet they want to destory the only organization that has been aggressively researching ways to stop the Reapers and have been successful

Again, your personal game story interpretation, not mine.

I see keep on evading the question
If you're going to make a point about Paragons want to unite the galaxy against the Reapers back it up