347 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Speculation of future events is a weak counter to what's actually been presented across the actual games. Just wanted to throw that out there...

My point is that nothing has actually been presented in game other than what might happen. There is also the fact that the Rachni decision is only one decision.

The collectors base results are not even in game yet. That is speculation based on ME3 spoilers. If 'future events' don't count, then nothing about the base decision counts.

Other than that the only complaints seem to be generic npcs vs named or 'familiar' ones (Anderson without the Council, generic colonist).

What's been presented in the game is what's been presented in the game.  The Rachni offer their might to yours and are on friendly terms with you.  And while that's only one decision, the other choices still make the Paragon choices favored over Renegades with no Renegade choice showing a demonstrated upside.. there's no positive spin dwelled on for those choices at all... that's the problem if you want to claim how 'even' they are.

The Collector Base decision results in every squadmate hating your decision... again, no positive validation of your choice, no upside presented over the Paragon choice... and the news of Cerberus's role in ME3 doesn't help the equality stance either...

The complaint has been what it's always been... there's been no demonstrated advantage to picking a choice other than the Paragon choice... nothing's presented in a positive fashion over the Paragon choice while the Paragon choice is presneted that way over the other choices... including extra content and more character appearances... and no, killing someone has nothing to do with it... there's a new Council if the old one died... they just weren't there.

Rip504 wrote...

I was gonna say more,but decided not to.

This is nothing more then an opinion. Not a fact. If Bioware honors the Paragon as being the "best choice/outcome".

Then why is the default Shepard in ME2 is made up of mostly Renegade decisions? Maybe Bioware considers the Renegade as the best option,and that is why they created default ME2 Shepard as so. Their default is a Renegade,if Bioware favored Paragon so much why isn't it the default? Bioware continues to state "they do not want to punish new players",so given their default is a Renegade. They feel as if the Renegade has not been punished,and has it's major plot events validated.

It's true.

It's actually a fact that's been proven.  Saving people is universally "better" than not saving them.  Getting praise for a decision is universally "better" than not recieving it.  A game where one player gets more content (no matter what it is) is universally "better" than having less content.

Default Shepard in ME2 was made up of mostly Renegade decisions mostly because of the lack of content relative to previous games.  That's just more proof of the corner-cutting they gave to Renegade choices and how the Paragon choice is the consistently favored choice of the series.  I hope that changes in ME3 (and it sounds like it will...) but the first 2 games speak for themselves.

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It's actually a fact that's been proven.  Saving people is universally "better" than not saving them.  Getting praise for a decision is universally "better" than not recieving it.  A game where one player gets more content (no matter what it is) is universally "better" than having less content.

Default Shepard in ME2 was made up of mostly Renegade decisions mostly because of the lack of content relative to previous games.  That's just more proof of the corner-cutting they gave to Renegade choices and how the Paragon choice is the consistently favored choice of the series.  I hope that changes in ME3 (and it sounds like it will...) but the first 2 games speak for themselves.

No it is not a fact. It is your opinion. Period. It has not been proven.

So using the Renegade default Shepard proves they cut conors and prefer Paragons. LOL

After they created both set of events and outcomes, all they had to do was implement their "Favored" Paragon as the default. They did not,because of pointless characters new players would not recognize. Pointless characters.That's Bioware's opinion. Obviously it is not better. They are just random pointless encounters.

It does prove That Bioware does not feel as if they punished Renegades though. As Bioware states they do not want to punish new players,so they start them off with a Renegade. It is hard to see the Paragon favoritism in that or the idea of Renegades being "punished" for their decisions.

Modifié par Rip504, 24 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

What's been presented in the game is what's been presented in the game.  The Rachni offer their might to yours and are on friendly terms with you.  And while that's only one decision, the other choices still make the Paragon choices favored over Renegades with no Renegade choice showing a demonstrated upside.. there's no positive spin dwelled on for those choices at all... that's the problem if you want to claim how 'even' they are.

The Rachni promise is still just a promise, nothing more. It isn't a realized promise yet.

The Collector Base decision results in every squadmate hating your decision... again, no positive validation of your choice, no upside presented over the Paragon choice... and the news of Cerberus's role in ME3 doesn't help the equality stance either...

The complaint has been what it's always been... there's been no demonstrated advantage to picking a choice other than the Paragon choice... nothing's presented in a positive fashion over the Paragon choice while the Paragon choice is presneted that way over the other choices... including extra content and more character appearances... and no, killing someone has nothing to do with it... there's a new Council if the old one died... they just weren't there

Since half of those crew members were encouraging you to blow it if momments before, why do their opinions suddenly matter now? That isn't so much your crew giving validation as your crew showing themselves to be idiots. And again there is no actual tangible benefits. If you are in this for praise, surprise surprise, the politicly correct (paragon) decisions lead to more praise. What did you think the 'politicly' part of 'politicly correct' meant?

You know from our past discussions that we disagree on the 'saved' council giving Shepard praise anyway.

Cerberus believes in doing what is deemed neccessary, even when that is labeled 'criminal, unethical or immoral.' That is the renegade ideal. You are upset that approach isn't praised?

It's actually a fact that's been proven. 

Forgive him. He hasn't realized yet that you consider everything you say to be a proven fact.

[Moiaussi]

By the way, the ME media outside the games also has a renegade default, hence Udina being Councellor. Is that some sort of slight against renegades too? You figure that BW deliberately sets up less popular or less well written defaults even outside of the games simply to promote paragons in the games? Really?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

No it is not a fact. It is your opinion. Period. It has not been proven.

So using the Renegade default Shepard proves they cut conors and prefer Paragons. LOL

After they created both set of events and outcomes, all they had to do was implement their "Favored" Paragon as the default. They did not,because of pointless characters new players would not recognize. Pointless characters.That's Bioware's opinion. Obviously it is not better. They are just random pointless encounters.

It does prove That Bioware does not feel as if they punished Renegades though. As Bioware states they do not want to punish new players,so they start them off with a Renegade. It is hard to see the Paragon favoritism in that or the idea of Renegades being "punished" for their decisions.

Lets break it down then.  Is it or is it not a better outcome for a hero to save more lives when they can?  Is it or is it not better for a hero to have more allies when they can?

Keep in mind we're just going off of what's been presented in the game... speculation for what "could be" is not proof of anything.

I'm not pulling this out of the ether... this is what the game actually presents.

And if you ever wrote a decent story, you'd know that there's no such thing as "pointless characters."  And sure, BIoware feels a lot of things... it doesn't mean they're right about it.  Having an intention doesn't mean they can't fail at it... and certainly making new players go through it doesn't prove anything.. and doesn't make the content or validation for past actions any less missing.

Moiaussi wrote...

The Rachni promise is still just a promise, nothing more. It isn't a realized promise yet.

A promise made is a promise made, they didn't threaten Shepard did they?  If the promise turns out to be false, the game does nothing to suggest it... actually the total opposite... why would the Rachni even promise Shepard anything if she didn't mean it?  Why even make the appearance at all?

Speculation aside, all the Rachni's presence in ME2 does is validate the Paragon choice... positively.

Since half of those crew members were encouraging you to blow it if momments before, why do their opinions suddenly matter now? That isn't so much your crew giving validation as your crew showing themselves to be idiots. And again there is no actual tangible benefits. If you are in this for praise, surprise surprise, the politicly correct (paragon) decisions lead to more praise. What did you think the 'politicly' part of 'politicly correct' meant?

 
Your justifications don't excuse what the game actually shows... which is a mass favoring of the Paragon choice.  Are you really going to argue that?

You know from our past discussions that we disagree on the 'saved' council giving Shepard praise anyway.

They personally wished you well and gave you back status you didn't need to have.  There's no arguing that.  Still more positive validation than the Renegade choice... no matter how much praise you felt the council gave you... it's more than what Renegades got.

Cerberus believes in doing what is deemed neccessary, even when that is labeled 'criminal, unethical or immoral.' That is the renegade ideal. You are upset that approach isn't praised?

It's praised when Paragon Shepard does it... that's the problem.... Paragon favoritism.

Forgive him. He hasn't realized yet that you consider everything you say to be a proven fact.

I consider what's in the actual game to be fact... not your own personal speculation or even the 'intent' that Bioware had for doing what they did.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

By the way, the ME media outside the games also has a renegade default, hence Udina being Councellor. Is that some sort of slight against renegades too? You figure that BW deliberately sets up less popular or less well written defaults even outside of the games simply to promote paragons in the games? Really?

Doesn't make Paragon choices any less favored in the games regarding outcome.. Naturally when things go wrong, a story becomes more interesting...

[Ieldra]

Moiaussi wrote...
Cerberus believes in doing what is deemed neccessary, even when that is labeled 'criminal, unethical or immoral.' That is the renegade ideal. You are upset that approach isn't praised?

No. We are upset that Renegade decisions never have tangible storyline benefits over Paragon decisions, while Paragon decisions have the tangible results that should be more the province of Renegade decisions, as well as the more intangible but equally important benefits like being liked by everyone.

There's no way around it: as things stand now, Paragons can have their cake and eat it, while Renegades eat sh*t and get nothing for it. I'm not saying that things can't change with ME3, but with the Rachni having promised their friendship and Cerberus being a big enemy in ME3, apparently validating the destruction of the Collector base, things are not looking promising.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juin 2011 - 09:54 .

[Rip504]

Lol whatever . Go ahead and break it down. Prove to me how it is "better." Oh wait you can not or you would have. Go ahead break it down. You will find out it is your opinion. Not facts. "Bioware is not right" about the story and content they own and write? LOL Listen to yourself. They create the parameters,not you. It's a game they created. You want realism stand in front of a bus. Yes realistic items can be part of the game,but at the end of the day it is a game. Bioware is right, It's their story.LMAO.

These characters are pointless to the general new player. Not Bioware. So the characters can be considered pointless. As some people already feel.

You are pulling it out of thin air. You choose what you feel is right. Saving lives is the better outcome for the Paragon. Letting people die for their current goal is the better outcome for the Renegade. They both end up in the same place,with a few different items. We are only talking about ME1 & ME2. There is no gap.

DA. Paragon saves Alien Council,DA,and stops the Reaper.
DA Renegade kills the Alien Council and DA,but saved the 8 human ships and killed the Reaper. How could one of these be better then the other?
They both end up with lives saved,a dead Reapers,and a Citadel Council.?

Default Renegade Shepard does imply that Bioware does not feel as if they have "punished" the Renegade.
Every company can fail at something,but we are talking about the story they are writing. In your opinion it is failing. The millions of units sold suggest differently. Also Bioware promised to import every Major plot event(Renegade &Paragon) to ME2,and they did deliver on that promise.

Modifié par Rip504, 24 juin 2011 - 10:16 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504, Did you really read my reply? What would you consider as proof? If you don't feel there's proof there or you don't mind standing corrected, then break it down with me and lets see.

And sure, some characters in a sequel will be pointless to a new player... doesn't mean they are to Renegade players who've played the previous games (as with any other characters from the previous game)

And again, the games don't focus on any beneficial thing you said regarding the Renegade outcome. 8 ships saved is certainly not declared in the Renegade playthrough...

If it's in the game, it can't be from thin air... seriously.

to restate once more... the issue is favoritism.

P.S.  Peter Molyneux of Lionhead Studios fame... once said that Fable 1 would allow you to plant a tree and watch it grow... Turns out that didn't happen in the game... please realize that there are realities to every goal.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 juin 2011 - 10:21 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

A promise made is a promise made, they didn't threaten Shepard did they?  If the promise turns out to be false, the game does nothing to suggest it... actually the total opposite... why would the Rachni even promise Shepard anything if she didn't mean it?  Why even make the appearance at all?

Speculation aside, all the Rachni's presence in ME2 does is validate the Paragon choice... positively.

You are completely ignoring the strong suggestion from the Queen in ME1 that the Rachni had been indoctrinated (the sour song from space at the start of the war). I wouldn't call that 'nothing to suggest it.' The promise can turn out to be false against the Rachni's will and still be a false promise.

Why make the appearance anyway? Possibly it is legitilmate or possibly it will be just to give us a false sense of victory to make the Rachni's indoctrination more 'tragic.' Why did the Council seem so onside with Shepard at the end of ME1? Why did half the crew argue in favour of keeping the base, then chide you for following their advice?

BW likes their twists.

Your justifications don't excuse what the game actually shows... which is a mass favoring of the Paragon choice.  Are you really going to argue that?

I did just argue that. I argued that the opinions of magpies mean little. You can consider that favoring, but I do not.

They personally wished you well and gave you back status you didn't need to have.  There's no arguing that.  Still more positive validation than the Renegade choice... no matter how much praise you felt the council gave you... it's more than what Renegades got.

Anderson tells Renegade Shepard that he can do whatever he wants about Shepard's status and the Council just have to suck it up. I consider that far more validating than "You are a TRAITOR!", here's a hall pass, now go far far away."

Repeating your opinion doesn't change mine. I know you believe what you believe, but belief isn't proof.

It's praised when Paragon Shepard does it... that's the problem.... Paragon favoritism.

Pardon, what criminal, unethical, or immoral things did Paragon Shepard do? The only one I can think of is Tali's trial but if Shepard calls the tribunal out on political shenannigans, he doesn't actually answer the question as to what was found on the research vessel. He wins the case with no perjury. Tali was actually innocent, so there is no miscarriage of justice. Her father was guilty but he wasn't on trial.

I consider what's in the actual game to be fact... not your own personal speculation or even the 'intent' that Bioware had for doing what they did.

You go beyond what is in game to your personal spin on it though, such as insisting that the conversation with the Council is some kind of reward and treating that as a fact rather than as a subjective preference on your part. Likewise you take the hypocrasy of the crew members regarding the base as if it has some actual significance.

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Rip504, Did you really read my reply? What would you consider as proof? If you don't feel there's proof there or you don't mind standing corrected, then break it down with me and lets see.

And sure, some characters in a sequel will be pointless to a new player... doesn't mean they are to Renegade players who've played the previous games (as with any other characters from the previous game)

And again, the games don't focus on any beneficial thing you said regarding the Renegade outcome. 8 ships saved is certainly not declared in the Renegade playthrough...

If it's in the game, it can't be from thin air... seriously.

to restate once more... the issue is favoritism.

I did. The issue here is that you favor the Paragon outcomes to the Renegade outcomes.
Explain to me how the DA is better for the Paragon and I will counter you,as it will be nothing more then your opinion. There is always a counter opinion. It is not a fact the Bioware favors the Paragon. That is your opinion.

Renegades and Paragons are meant to be different playthroughs while resolving around the same content.
Shiala,Gianni,Rachni,& the Alien council is not new content. It is old content imported from ME1. Nothing new was added for the individual Paragon. Unresolved issue were resolved in ME2. The content is not exclusive.

In ME2 there are more unresolved situations for both Renegades and Paragons,I bet you will see any unresolved situation resolved in ME3. It is about resolution,not validation or favoritism.

Modifié par Rip504, 24 juin 2011 - 10:34 .

[Xeranx]

Moiaussi wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I think if Shiala is killed there's no reason for Liz to show up with Shiala.  I think Shiala shows up because the rep for those running the tests is an Asari.  Shiala being an Asari of an unsual coloring might engender more sympathy than a regular human being.  Also, with Liz being part of the Exogeni group that went to Feros and found out what was going on she might stay on Feros to help.  So Shiala is the best bet because of the likeliness to gain sympathy and because she is unstable.

Presumably you meant 'if Shiala is not killed. If Shiala is dead it is pretty obvious why she wouldn't show up with Liz, lol.

Shiala being unstable is more reason for the additional tests though, not less. Liz showing up with her could provide a more objective advocate. 

Why I think Liz would be a good choice to show up if Shiala is dead is she was the one who wanted to say something about the project.  She didn't agree with it.  She would have a more genuine disposition than a colonist who knew nothing of what's going on.  But of course, there's the issue of it being a human problem cause by human ignorance or stupidity.

To the extent Shiala is more sympathetic than Liz would be, why wouldn't the same arguement apply to the generic colonist we currently get (who also is suffering side effects) rather than Liz? And why doesn't your arguement in favour of Liz apply to the situation where Shiala is alive?

I feel like I'm looking to be tripped up here.   Yes, I did mean if Shiala is not killed.

I think the generic colonist wouldn't garner much sympathy from the Baria Frontiers rep because of the way the Baria Frontiers rep reacts towards the situation.  Looking again at this part of your post I think I understand why it would be assumed that there would be more sympathy attained by Liz and Shiala both appearing.  The problem with that is it would be a step above what I expressed in Shiala being there by herself.  It would look even more like someone's trying to pull on the rep's heart strings when it should be more about there being actual suffering and that even an Asari can be at the same mercy the human colonists are.  Yes, that an Asari is there with an unusual skin tone is definitely an attempt to pull at the rep's heart strings, but the individual can express discomfort better than a mouth piece ever could. 

The generic human colonist doesn't have or shouldn't have the same impact Shiala would because they aren't Asari.  And they wouldn't have more of an impact than Liz because the rep feels humans are getting their just desserts.  I think Liz would get more sympathy in that she's part of something that caused suffering and she's come to beg for help to right a wrong committed by those with whom she aligned herself.  By admitting to something she's a part of it would show the rep that some humans are capable of seeing where they went wrong.  They can admit fault, and some can be genuinely remorseful about it.  The rep could maybe see that they're exacerbating the suffering of those that are in her companies care and if they continue they're no better than Exogeni is.  I know I'm romanticizing it, but it's just the way it looks to me. 

Moiaussi wrote...

I didn't know you get recognition in ME2 if you help Feros out.  Does that mean renegade players don't help out Feros in ME2?  In either case it would probably be a good idea for Liz to be there anyway for a renegade playthrough.  The letter just serves as additional confirmation that what Shepard did worked.  I don't know what the renegade response says by the way.

I don't understand the bit about receiving a thank you in ME3.

Actually I just checked...  renegades can convince the Baria rep to back down too, so both can get the thank you. In fact, not helping doesn't seem to be paragon or renegade. You get 2 paragon points for offering to help in the first place but otherwise it all seems to be even.

As for the potential thank you in ME3, if the additional tests that would have been done per the contract led to an actual cure, the survivors could be thankful that you convinced them to go through with them. Its like root canals. Noone really wants one, but that doesn't make them a bad idea.

Oh.  You meant the invasive tests.  I completely forgot about that.  Yeah, that sounds like more fuel for the fire for the which is better paragon/renegade argument.  If paragon wins out that's horribly skewed.  What you suggested is actually in line with the...forgot what it was called in Jade Empire.  But wasn't there something to do with fees?  I should see if I can load up a save for that and go over it.   

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No. We are upset that Renegade decisions never have tangible storyline benefits over Paragon decisions, while Paragon decisions have the tangible results that should be more the province of Renegade decisions, as well as the more intangible but equally important benefits like being liked by everyone.

There's no way around it: as things stand now, Paragons can have their cake and eat it, while Renegades eat sh*t and get nothing for it. I'm not saying that things can't change with ME3, but with the Rachni having promised their friendship and Cerberus being a big enemy in ME3, apparently validating the destruction of the Collector base, things are not looking promising.

Again, what 'tangible storyline benefits' do paragons get? You say it isn't praise that is at issue, so then what? ME3 isn't here yet. They haven't even finished production yet. The keyword in your diatribe is 'appearantly.' You are making assumptions on little information, and the biggest one is actually that any of these decisions will have a meaningful effect on ME3. Nothing from ME1 had any meaningfull effect (other than praise for some actions) on ME2, so why the insistance that ME3 will be any given way?

[Moiaussi]

Xeranx wrote...

I feel like I'm looking to be tripped up here.   Yes, I did mean if Shiala is not killed.

I think the generic colonist wouldn't garner much sympathy from the Baria Frontiers rep because of the way the Baria Frontiers rep reacts towards the situation.  Looking again at this part of your post I think I understand why it would be assumed that there would be more sympathy attained by Liz and Shiala both appearing.  The problem with that is it would be a step above what I expressed in Shiala being there by herself.  It would look even more like someone's trying to pull on the rep's heart strings when it should be more about there being actual suffering and that even an Asari can be at the same mercy the human colonists are.  Yes, that an Asari is there with an unusual skin tone is definitely an attempt to pull at the rep's heart strings, but the individual can express discomfort better than a mouth piece ever could. 

The generic human colonist doesn't have or shouldn't have the same impact Shiala would because they aren't Asari.  And they wouldn't have more of an impact than Liz because the rep feels humans are getting their just desserts.  I think Liz would get more sympathy in that she's part of something that caused suffering and she's come to beg for help to right a wrong committed by those with whom she aligned herself.  By admitting to something she's a part of it would show the rep that some humans are capable of seeing where they went wrong.  They can admit fault, and some can be genuinely remorseful about it.  The rep could maybe see that they're exacerbating the suffering of those that are in her companies care and if they continue they're no better than Exogeni is.  I know I'm romanticizing it, but it's just the way it looks to me. 

Shiala doesn't get more sympathy because of her condition though but because she is Asari. Liz isn't Asari so she would just be 'another evil human.' Her name wouldn't mean anything more to the Baria rep than whatever the generic colonist's name is (she presumably does have an actual name). As for Liz having been part of the cause, that would have been more evidence of human evil. See? When they don't pick on us they turn on each other!  Liz could have pointed out that Shiala is Asari and is just as important as the other colonists.

Oh.  You meant the invasive tests.  I completely forgot about that.  Yeah, that sounds like more fuel for the fire for the which is better paragon/renegade argument.  If paragon wins out that's horribly skewed.  What you suggested is actually in line with the...forgot what it was called in Jade Empire.  But wasn't there something to do with fees?  I should see if I can load up a save for that and go over it.  

It turns out though that both paragons and renegades can avoid the additional tests so it turns out even.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 24 juin 2011 - 11:14 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
You are completely ignoring the strong suggestion from the Queen in ME1 that the Rachni had been indoctrinated (the sour song from space at the start of the war). I wouldn't call that 'nothing to suggest it.' The promise can turn out to be false against the Rachni's will and still be a false promise.

Why make the appearance anyway? Possibly it is legitilmate or possibly it will be just to give us a false sense of victory to make the Rachni's indoctrination more 'tragic.' Why did the Council seem so onside with Shepard at the end of ME1? Why did half the crew argue in favour of keeping the base, then chide you for following their advice?

BW likes their twists.

I remember that, but I also remember that not all of the Rachni were indoctrinated, and supposedly, just the ones who couldn't hear their mother.

Regardless, all that's taken place since the choice have been positive reinforcement for the Paragon choice.  Since you're saying it could be a setup for a twist, I'll take that as implicit agreement... and the Renegade choice gets no such thing.

I did just argue that. I argued that the opinions of magpies mean little. You can consider that favoring, but I do not.

The opinion of magpies?  They're the Council, God is the only higher ruling body in the ME universe that's been mentioned...  Come on now....

Anderson tells Renegade Shepard that he can do whatever he wants about Shepard's status and the Council just have to suck it up. I consider that far more validating than "You are a TRAITOR!", here's a hall pass, now go far far away."

Repeating your opinion doesn't change mine. I know you believe what you believe, but belief isn't proof.

You'd rather a long-time friend sneak the status to you than have the higher ups actually give it to you directly and wish you well?  (Because that's all the game says... the rest is in your own imagination).  Seriously, that's worth thinking through... there's really nothing to argue there.  And Anderson promises to keep the Alliance and Council off your back regardless... so you get that too.

Pardon, what criminal, unethical, or immoral things did Paragon Shepard do? The only one I can think of is Tali's trial but if Shepard calls the tribunal out on political shenannigans, he doesn't actually answer the question as to what was found on the research vessel. He wins the case with no perjury. Tali was actually innocent, so there is no miscarriage of justice. Her father was guilty but he wasn't on trial.

All Shepards steal the Normandy to go after Saren and work with Cerberus to stop the Collectors.  No matter what your alignment is at the time. 

You go beyond what is in game to your personal spin on it though, such as insisting that the conversation with the Council is some kind of reward and treating that as a fact rather than as a subjective preference on your part. Likewise you take the hypocrasy of the crew members regarding the base as if it has some actual significance.

You're the only one spinning things there.  I'm going by what the Council actually says...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 juin 2011 - 11:51 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

I did. The issue here is that you favor the Paragon outcomes to the Renegade outcomes.
Explain to me how the DA is better for the Paragon and I will counter you,as it will be nothing more then your opinion. There is always a counter opinion. It is not a fact the Bioware favors the Paragon. That is your opinion.

Renegades and Paragons are meant to be different playthroughs while resolving around the same content.
Shiala,Gianni,Rachni,& the Alien council is not new content. It is old content imported from ME1. Nothing new was added for the individual Paragon. Unresolved issue were resolved in ME2. The content is not exclusive.

In ME2 there are more unresolved situations for both Renegades and Paragons,I bet you will see any unresolved situation resolved in ME3. It is about resolution,not validation or favoritism.

Alright then lets start here:
 
The Paragon choice saves much more lives in the battle of the Citadel (based on what we know) without having to sacrifice the Council to obtain victory over Sovereign.... compared to the Renegade/Neutral choice sacrificing the Council and losing more lives to also obtain victory over Sovereign.  This choice also allows you to meet with the Council (regardless of how they may feel about you) as they grant you Spectre reinstatement with best wishes.  Shepard is also positively supported for his efforts in the game by unique people to the Renegade choice.

I look forward to reading your counter and standing for the Renegade/Neutral side.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 juin 2011 - 11:52 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No. We are upset that Renegade decisions never have tangible storyline benefits over Paragon decisions, while Paragon decisions have the tangible results that should be more the province of Renegade decisions, as well as the more intangible but equally important benefits like being liked by everyone.

There's no way around it: as things stand now, Paragons can have their cake and eat it, while Renegades eat sh*t and get nothing for it.

So the issue is that you've aligned yourself with a particular imaginary "group" based on the choices you would prefer to make in a single-player game and have decided that, since those choices don't give results that you like, you must be being victimised?

Where does that put people that have multiple playthroughs? I have played both extremes and some inbetween, does that mean I'm favoured or hated by Bioware? What does the fact that I enjoy the different playthroughs mean?

The story of the game isn't about you, it's about Shepard.  If people don't like Shepard, it's not intended as an insult to the player.  If Shepard kills someone it doesn't mean the player is guilty of murder.  All the choices in the game are valid, the player may have a personal preference but there are no "right" or "wrong" choices.

There are people who enjoy the story as it is now, are those people "wrong" or could it possibly be that you simply have a different opinion on how the story should go?

[TheRevanchist]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

No. We are upset that Renegade decisions never have tangible storyline benefits over Paragon decisions, while Paragon decisions have the tangible results that should be more the province of Renegade decisions, as well as the more intangible but equally important benefits like being liked by everyone.

There's no way around it: as things stand now, Paragons can have their cake and eat it, while Renegades eat sh*t and get nothing for it.

So the issue is that you've aligned yourself with a particular imaginary "group" based on the choices you would prefer to make in a single-player game and have decided that, since those choices don't give results that you like, you must be being victimised?

Where does that put people that have multiple playthroughs? I have played both extremes and some inbetween, does that mean I'm favoured or hated by Bioware? What does the fact that I enjoy the different playthroughs mean?

The story of the game isn't about you, it's about Shepard.  If people don't like Shepard, it's not intended as an insult to the player.  If Shepard kills someone it doesn't mean the player is guilty of murder.  All the choices in the game are valid, the player may have a personal preference but there are no "right" or "wrong" choices.

There are people who enjoy the story as it is now, are those people "wrong" or could it possibly be that you simply have a different opinion on how the story should go?

Thank you for the love of god...I play both as well...and I have no problems what-so-ever with the results Renegades get. I got exactly what I expected to get...peoples scorn for Shepard's choices.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I remember that, but I also remember that not all of the Rachni were indoctrinated, and supposedly, just the ones who couldn't hear their mother.

Regardless, all that's taken place since the choice have been positive reinforcement for the Paragon choice.  Since you're saying it could be a setup for a twist, I'll take that as implicit agreement... and the Renegade choice gets no such thing.

I think you are confusing the rachni raised without the queen (on Noveria) with the rachni in the actual war. The Rachni Queen on Noveria didn't mention anything about any Rachni not heeding the call other than herself and in her case it was because she heard only echoes since she was still just an egg.

The drones etc on Noveria went mad because they had been raised from hatchlings without any nurturing at all whereas (per the Queen) they would normally have had guidance and ended up more productive and rational.

The opinion of magpies?  They're the Council, God is the only higher ruling body in the ME universe that's been mentioned...  Come on now....

I have been trying to avoid nesting the quotes too deep, but that was with respect to the crew members nearly snapping their heads off in their 'opinion about face' regarding keeping the base. The Council aren't magpies, they are foxes, too sly for their own good.

You'd rather a long-time friend sneak the status to you than have the higher ups actually give it to you directly and wish you well?  (Because that's all the game says... the rest is in your own imagination).  Seriously, that's worth thinking through... there's really nothing to argue there.  And Anderson promises to keep the Alliance and Council off your back regardless... so you get that too.

Anderson isn't sneaking anything. Reinstating Shepard is still a matter of public record. He says they won't like it but can't do anything about it, nothing in there about sneaking. The other Councellors are rendered impotent on the matter by Shepard's heroism and resulting popularity. That seems like pretty strong vindication to me.

YMMV, of course.

All Shepards steal the Normandy to go after Saren and work with Cerberus to stop the Collectors.  No matter what your alignment is at the time.

That doesn't mean the actions fit better with paragon than renegade though. Forced or not they make more sense from a renegade perspective.

You're the only one spinning things there.  I'm going by what the Council actually says...

So am I. You are insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one though. The way you talk you would think you had written it. Thing is, you didn't.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

I think you are confusing the rachni raised without the queen (on Noveria) with the rachni in the actual war. The Rachni Queen on Noveria didn't mention anything about any Rachni not heeding the call other than herself and in her case it was because she heard only echoes since she was still just an egg.

The drones etc on Noveria went mad because they had been raised from hatchlings without any nurturing at all whereas (per the Queen) they would normally have had guidance and ended up more productive and rational.

In Mass Effect 2, the Rachni promise revenge for those who soured the songs of their mothers/ancestors.  In addition to that, the Asari that gave the message was saved by the Rachni.

And yes, the Rachni were said to have been forced to do it against their will... and likely by the Reapers.  That's what the Rachni wants revenge against and why she's offering to help Shepard.

I have been trying to avoid nesting the quotes too deep, but that was with respect to the crew members nearly snapping their heads off in their 'opinion about face' regarding keeping the base. The Council aren't magpies, they are foxes, too sly for their own good.

I wonder what your opinion would be if those magpies bashed you for destroying the base instead... it's wierd no matter which side they universally support.

Anderson isn't sneaking anything. Reinstating Shepard is still a matter of public record. He says they won't like it but can't do anything about it, nothing in there about sneaking. The other Councellors are rendered impotent on the matter by Shepard's heroism and resulting popularity. That seems like pretty strong vindication to me.

YMMV, of course.

Anderson's doing it without them being involved... just because the Council can't do anything about it doesn't make it any less of what it was.  The Council didn't want Shepard to have his Spectre status back, while with the Paragon choice, they do.  That's just how it is. 

That doesn't mean the actions fit better with paragon than renegade though. Forced or not they make more sense from a renegade perspective.

And they didn't result in any negative consequence.

So am I. You are insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one though. The way you talk you would think you had written it. Thing is, you didn't.

You're focused on the fact that they called working with Cerberus treason and not considering the rest of what was said.  You didn't write this either, but all things considered, it's pretty obvious that the Council supports you... just compare it to the Renegade decision's outcome... you don't get Council support with them... and it becomes painfully obvious that they did not have to reinstate your Spectre status at all.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 juin 2011 - 02:25 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...
Thank you for the love of god...I play both as well...and I have no problems what-so-ever with the results Renegades get. I got exactly what I expected to get...peoples scorn for Shepard's choices.

So you feel the Renegade is the "evil" guy?  Because that wasn't Bioware's intention.  If you feel that is what a Renegade is, then I'm sorry to say that Bioware has failed you... so far...

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Smeelia wrote...

So the issue is that you've aligned yourself with a particular imaginary "group" based on the choices you would prefer to make in a single-player game and have decided that, since those choices don't give results that you like, you must be being victimised?

Where does that put people that have multiple playthroughs? I have played both extremes and some inbetween, does that mean I'm favoured or hated by Bioware? What does the fact that I enjoy the different playthroughs mean?

The story of the game isn't about you, it's about Shepard.  If people don't like Shepard, it's not intended as an insult to the player.  If Shepard kills someone it doesn't mean the player is guilty of murder.  All the choices in the game are valid, the player may have a personal preference but there are no "right" or "wrong" choices.

There are people who enjoy the story as it is now, are those people "wrong" or could it possibly be that you simply have a different opinion on how the story should go?

The Renegade results are not as developed or as positive as the Paragon choice.  Renegade choices have resulted in more lives lost to achieve the same objective that Paragons have, less cameos than Paragons get, and less validation than Paragons get.  That's the issue.

It's more than an issue for Renegades... it's an issue for someone who'd like to entertain every option to seriously consider which will be the best solution without actually knowing that it'll be the blue button.

Whether you enjoyed what was available is irrelevant to the point.  I enjoyed ME2... doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Thank you for the love of god...I play both as well...and I have no problems what-so-ever with the results Renegades get. I got exactly what I expected to get...peoples scorn for Shepard's choices.

So you feel the Renegade is the "evil" guy?  Because that wasn't Bioware's intention.  If you feel that is what a Renegade is, then I'm sorry to say that Bioware has failed you... so far...

No...not "evil"...but I never expected people to walk around and congragulate me for it. I never excpeted some random scientist to walk up to me and randomly say "thanks for killing Rachni k bye". Nor did I need such things...because my Renegade FemShep made her choices in full confidence and regrets nothing. I never once saw the Renegade as the "cheated" side. I got exactly what I excpeted out of those choices, nothing. Because I decided elimanateing the Rachni was worth it, and even if they were to be allies it would probably affect support with the other races if they were still alive. I killed the colonists because i didn't want to waste time knowing the Normandy was threatened. I killed Shiala because I couldn't trust the Thorian was free from her system (which turns out wasn't). And I couldn't care less if the quest is some random NPC or Liz...big f***ing deal you still get the quest as far as I'm concerned.
I sacrificed the Council because I considered them incompatent and not worth the price of saving. I picked Anderson because Udina sold me out in ME1 and I'll be damned if I give him the poistion. The human Council was just as incompatent save for Anderson which turned out fine because I only needed Anderson anyway...besides that my Renegade Shepard considered the Council totaly useless long ago and don't really care what they think of her because shes doing what needs to be done. She saved the Collector Base because she thinks it's the perfect oppertunity to learn from the enemy. Cerberus in ME3 will not change her mind...she'll just kill any Cerberus people there and figure it out herself. She will never regret any of her choices...and expects no rewards for it save for the salvation of the galaxy...at any cost.  

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...

No...not "evil"...but I never expected people to walk around and congragulate me for it. I never excpeted some random scientist to walk up to me and randomly say "thanks for killing Rachni k bye". Nor did I need such things...because my Renegade FemShep made her choices in full confidence and regrets nothing. I never once saw the Renegade as the "cheated" side. I got exactly what I excpeted out of those choices, nothing. Because I decided elimanateing the Rachni was worth it, and even if they were to be allies it would probably affect support with the other races if they were still alive. I killed the colonists because i didn't want to waste time knowing the Normandy was threatened. I killed Shiala because I couldn't trust the Thorian was free from her system (which turns out wasn't). And I couldn't care less if the quest is some random NPC or Liz...big f***ing deal you still get the quest as far as I'm concerned.
I sacrificed the Council because I considered them incompatent and not worth the price of saving. I picked Anderson because Udina sold me out in ME1 and I'll be damned if I give him the poistion. The human Council was just as incompatent save for Anderson which turned out fine because I only needed Anderson anyway...besides that my Renegade Shepard considered the Council totaly useless long ago and don't really care what they think of her because shes doing what needs to be done. She saved the Collector Base because she thinks it's the perfect oppertunity to learn from the enemy. Cerberus in ME3 will not change her mind...she'll just kill any Cerberus people there and figure it out herself. She will never regret any of her choices...and expects no rewards for it save for the salvation of the galaxy...at any cost.  

That's a nice rationale for getting less content... but there could've been events, chars, and moments exclusive to the choice that doesn't harm the persona you picture for the Renegade (such things didn't harm the Paragon playthrough).  People don't have to thank Shepard directly, but there's virtually nothing to validate the choice... that's different.  If it were in there, you likely would've enjoyed your Renegade playthrough all the more.

In movies, the Renegade-types generally don't expect a thank you either... but the film they're in makes it clear what the positive influence of their decisions are...  And even more-so, there's always chars that understand what that type of hero is doing...  Mass Effect doesn't really do that for Renegades compared to Paragons... especially when you consider that at any point, you could've chosen something else.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Please also consider kylecouch, that those Renegade rationales have thusfar always proven to be unnecessary sacrifices... you'd lose nothing by doing the Paragon choice. The ship doesn't suffer, more lives aren't being saved, Sovereign still falls, the Council's no different, all loyalty is still gained, etc. etc.

You don't feel that's an issue... that there's not one time yet where a choice other than Paragon has yielded a more favorable result?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 juin 2011 - 05:14 .