19 réponses à ce sujet

[Skirata129]

I realize that there's quite likely many, MANY threads about this, but gravedigging likely isn't encouraged.

Does anyone else feel that the Genophage cure with Mordin, Rachni queen, and collector base destroy or save decisions were a bit too ambiguous to assign those points to?

I saved the Rachni because they'd make good allies, not because I was upset about the whole genocide thing. (though the method of killing her was a bit over the top)

I wanted to save the cure as a future bargaining chip with the krogan, not because I thought the genophage was wrong. It's established through conversation that it is the best choice out of a crappy situation.

I saved the collector base because the technology would save millions of lives, not because I felt callous indifference to the fate of those who were absorbed by the reaper.

The geth was a bit less severe, but I just thought that brainwashing 5% of a population to save their lives when they'd repeatedly taken others, at the risk of losing the other 95% and a chance that they'll return to "heretic" state and kill things was incredibly irresponsible and morally questionable.

I think that all those choices really should have just awarded equal amounts of each for the persuasion bonus and the outcome just recorded for storyline usage.

[Biotic_Warlock]

I imagine these choices should impact the game a lot (unlike in DA2 where they were pretty much invisible)

Slightly OT - but still pretty on topic in a weird way: I would like to see symbols in the dialogue wheel like in DA2, which tells u which choice is paragon or renegade (or just being humourous and witty). It can be hard telling which one is most aggressive - except the red/blue options which  u have to unlock >_>

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 11 juin 2011 - 01:47 .

[Skirata129]

? lower left and right almost always correspond to renegade.

[Dangerfoot]

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

[RPGamer13]

Well, the percentage thing I like better than the first game, I always choose the Renegade options.

Your third point, is along the lines of what they did with Dragon Age 2 and I have been hoping they do it with Mass Effect 3 for a while now.

Back to the topic at hand: From reading various magazine articles, it dawns on me that I have done everything to supposedly make Mass Effect 3 as hard as possible.

One said, if you save the Rachni Queen then they might help you, I killed her so definitely no hope there. I gave the Collector Base to the Illusive Man and another article said that would supposedly give Cerberus an advantage.

About the only thing I did to help Shepard according to the magazine articles is save the Genophage cure.

[Nivilant]

ME seems to work on the basis of action and not motive. It's probably not possible to track all the possible motives. They seem to go for the most likely... having said that, there's a bit of a flaw in creating 'grey' arguments when you have a clear indicator of what the devs think is the 'evil' choice via the position of the answer on the wheel. (For the record, I'm Pro-Rachni, Pro-Genophage, Pro-Geth, Anti-Cerberus and I destroyed the Collector Base. In short, probably Paragade.)

I think possibly the Paragon/Renegade system doesn't work all that well. It's a very rigid sytem that doesn't allow for many RP styles since without a lot of Para-points you can't get later Paragon options, which rules out certain character types right off the bat unless you want Failure!Shep as an import option.

[P912]

I don't really play paragon or renegade. I just kind of imagine a personality and mind set for each Shepard I have. For example, my main Shepard represents what I think/ what I would do, and another Shepard represents a Shepard who only cares about stopping the Reaper threat, and all other objectives are pointless. This means he doesn't care about saving random citizens, but he also won't kill people in revenge unless they present a threat, as every person must be available to fight the Reaper threat.

Then I made an **** Shepard who tries to have sex with everyone on the Normandy. Just for a laugh ;-)

[Jonathan Shepard]

Skirata129 wrote...

I realize that there's quite likely many, MANY threads about this, but gravedigging likely isn't encouraged.

Does anyone else feel that the Genophage cure with Mordin, Rachni queen, and collector base destroy or save decisions were a bit too ambiguous to assign those points to?

I saved the Rachni because they'd make good allies, not because I was upset about the whole genocide thing. (though the method of killing her was a bit over the top)

I wanted to save the cure as a future bargaining chip with the krogan, not because I thought the genophage was wrong. It's established through conversation that it is the best choice out of a crappy situation.

I saved the collector base because the technology would save millions of lives, not because I felt callous indifference to the fate of those who were absorbed by the reaper.

The geth was a bit less severe, but I just thought that brainwashing 5% of a population to save their lives when they'd repeatedly taken others, at the risk of losing the other 95% and a chance that they'll return to "heretic" state and kill things was incredibly irresponsible and morally questionable.

I think that all those choices really should have just awarded equal amounts of each for the persuasion bonus and the outcome just recorded for storyline usage.

See, this what the logical player thinks without meta-gaming. But then being on the forums pretty much forces you to meta-game in every re-play.

In my ME-3 prepped save, I've got all Paragon decisions except for the Rachni; "I don't want tentacled monstrosities running around my galaxy!" -Udina (he says something like that if you report to him after Noveria).
I supported the genophage, but I kept the data in case it needed to be modified again. If the research is there, might as well keep it. "Might as well have it and not need it."
I also like to think it's morelike 30/70% ratio of heretic to true geth... Because if it were only 5%, I'm pretty sure I'd wiped them all out in ME1. I just hope how they play out in ME3 comes to be equal in content. Not getting to see an all-human council or the new council was a little frustrating. Particularly because I don't think you can get your spectre status back if the original council died, can you?

Also, this:

Dangerfoot wrote...

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

Modifié par Jonathan Shepard, 11 juin 2011 - 04:25 .

[Decepticus Wolf]

Dangerfoot wrote...

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

This

[Ice Cold J]

Rachni Queen and Genophage: no. If you trya nd play god by eliminating a species on a whim or prejudice, it's wrong. Eliminating certain memebers of that species is one thing, but eliminating all for the actions of some? No.

Collector Base: more of a shaded gray. The tech on board, in the right hands, could probably help against the Reapers. That being said, everything produced in that base was an atrocity. The symbolic act of destroying it was more Paragon.

[Robhuzz]

Decepticus Wolf wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

This

^Especially number 1. I hate when I want to make a certain descision but can't because I can then NOT choose a certain charm/intimidate option later on.

[Syreniac]

The only problem with making charm/intimidate options seperate to para/rene scores is that they are always better than the alternatives; then you're just adding in options for people who are going to actively choose to make bad decisions and essentially just wasting your time...

[Nivilant]

Ice Cold J wrote...

Rachni Queen and Genophage: no. If you trya nd play god by eliminating a species on a whim or prejudice, it's wrong. Eliminating certain memebers of that species is one thing, but eliminating all for the actions of some? No.

Collector Base: more of a shaded gray. The tech on board, in the right hands, could probably help against the Reapers. That being said, everything produced in that base was an atrocity. The symbolic act of destroying it was more Paragon.

Who says it's about prejudice? In my mind it's logic. It's like Virmire. You have to choose, and there is no definitive right answer because each option has risks and rewards. In the end, it's your point of view that makes wrong or right, and how you justify it.

I get the Rachni thing since it very much sounds like if you killed the Queen that was it for their entire species... but I don't think the Genophage really fits into that category. What really persuaded me was that Wrex didn't sign up to Maelon's research. Wrex. The sensible Krogan. In the end it's not about playing God, it's about sacrifice. From what has been said, the average Krogan is like Weyrloc Guld or Uvenk... I don't think I really want to let them loose all over the galaxy until the more mind-strong members of the species get a good hold on things, whereas the Rachni claim to have been essentially brainwashed so I'm willing to give the Queen a chance to prove her good intent.

TBH, I destroyed the base because I saw Cerberus becoming my enemies a mile off, wasn't that hard to predict. Taking that view, any chance I can get to eliminate an advantage to them I'm going to take.

Paragon and Renegade don't factor into my decisions. I go by gut feeling, which was always; Destroying the base doesn't give us less than we have at the moment, but keeping it could cause major problems later. The Rachni are probably severely weaker than they were, whereas other civilisations have evolved. The Genophage was the attempt to correct a previous mistake, and until the krogan learn to put their heads together and live rather than just survive the Genophage will stay right where it is.

And finally, if a machine asked me why it existed my first response would not be to shoot it and then act like the resulting retaliation was not my fault.

[Raiil]

Dangerfoot wrote...

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

I totally, totally agree with this. The paragon/renegade system in ME2 really made me mad at some points. You get smacked if you play something other than a holy paladin or gone totally rogue.

[mikejcroc]

I think that the endings will follow the psychological profiles, not necessarily the one you chose, but if you were Paragon or Renegade. War Hero (Paragon) you would win the fight and save as many races as possible, Sole Survivor (Mixed) you would possibly win but be the only survivor with a possible other, and Ruthless (Renegade) you would win but having sacrificed the other races.

[Robhuzz]

Valentia X wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

What they need to do is totally rework the P&R system.

1) It should no longer work so that you have to have a percentage of paragon choices made in order to make some paragon choices. All options should be accessible to decrease the need for metagaming.

2) Paragon and Renegade should no longer be "nice/tactful/vaguely good" and "mean/direct/vaguely evil". Instead P&R should be translate to idealism and pragmatism respectively.

3) Since my idea makes the bar of points kind of useless, how about once you get a majority of Paragon responses, any of your automatic dialogue takes on the tone of a paragon idealist.

I totally, totally agree with this. The paragon/renegade system in ME2 really made me mad at some points. You get smacked if you play something other than a holy paladin or gone totally rogue.

Indeed, BW often talked about Grey areas but you either had to become full Paragon or full Renegade, somewhere around the neutral line just wasn't going to cut it. I'm really hoping for some changes in ME3....

[Skirata129]

Yeah the fact that you lose future squad members if you don't feel like being an ass to everyone you come across or a "holier than thou" pillar of virtue threw me off. the charm intimidate from mass effect works if they let us carry pionts spent over playthroughs so we can play how we want the second or third time rather than how we have to for the best possible outcome.

[neubourn]

One of the things i enjoyed from DA2 was how your dialogue choices ended up setting your tone in normal Dialogue. If you chose the "Sarcastic" option, then after awhile, all of your dialogue had a snarkiness to it, it definitely helped define the character based on your morality choices. I kind of hope they used soemthing like that for ME3, if you choose mostly P or R options, then your normal dialogue will also reflect that in your tone.

[zeoduos]

Going along the lines of the OP, I kinda hate that almost all of the decisions are made in absolutes. I understand that the charm/intimidate mechanic allows for more reasonable choices, but for me it's still not enough.

I wanted to keep the Collector base intact, but maybe I could've just called in the Alliance instead of handing it to TIM. I know these kind of ideas are far fetched and would potentially create too many problems for the developers when it comes to maintaining a base structure to the story.

[zalfy]

I believe most people hit on the big points in this thread....But destroying the collector base is one of the most (if not the) difficult decision imo. Save it? and risk letting TIM **** everything up? Or destroy it, and never let him have the chance? Pretty freakin' complicated question.