347 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

The Rachni haven't provided any tangible benefits yet, nor have any differences in fleet strength resulting from the Citadel battle mattered as there were no fleet actions in ME2. The Council hasn't had to make any meaningful decisions, so we don't know which Council (if any) will be more effective.

And yet despite this lack of tangible benefits (just someone and their army that wants to ally with you against the Reapers), they were still there (exclusively) to present it.  The Renegade choices lead to no equivalent cameo or exclusive content.  And to restate in advance, no one's asking for a Renegade Rachni cameo.

The Feros survivors are suffering ill effects that noone can find the cause of. This wasn't immediately true in ME1. These complications set in later.

Cool man.

Vido could have caused many deaths. We hadn't heard of him at all prior to Zaheed, so if crimes we don't hear about after he gets away don't count, then crimes he committed before the chance to take him down don't count either.

Hmm, I'd think about this one a bit more.  Previous offenses you had no way of stopping (because you didn't know)... later offenses (when you have the power to do something) would be on your hands... but luckily the game presents no such thing for the Paragon choice (whew).

Balak is still at large and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't try again. This is especially true after Arrival when he would likely have considerably more mainstream Batarian support.

He is still out there and may well do something nasty in ME3... but for the first 2 games?  He's not doing anything... nothing negative to report.

The Collector Base decision is extremely short term. That one happened at the very end of ME2 and before any crew would have anything to base anything on other than a general distrust of TIM, but the only one who has actually done anything against Cerberus so far has been Mordin (removing the bugs from his lab). Even Tali didn't do that and she is argueably the most anti-Cerberus crew member.

It was short term, but going on what we have to go on... the entire crew favors the Paragon choice... I'm glad you atleast don't argue with this one...

The fact is that we have only seen hints of what might be. ME2's story was too isolated to be affected by ME1. ME3 will involve full scale reaper invasion so pretty much everywhere will be affected.

As for Casey's statement, why would a situation with the Council refusing to meet you be more understandable than when you do? And why would Udina be easier to understand as Councellor than Anderson? Introductions are needed for both either way. Why not the more sympathetic councellor?

Believe me, I understand that ME3 is likely to change things (which is why I made that thread regarding Casey's quote... and I'm glad that things are looking to be more balanced)... but it still doesn't excuse the general favoritism (as it could be defined by those that consider it a usable term) the first 2 games have toward the Paragon choices.

It's fine to have Paragon/Renegade actions being consistent... but not the consequences... otherwise the choice becomes predictable.  It's fine to have cameos and exclusive content for Paragon choices... but that's no reason to skimp on a Renegade equivalent choice... otherwise it becomes uneven.  It's fine to have events and characters positively validate the decisions a Paragon makes... but to not do the same for Renegade choices (atleast some of the time) makes for a narrative bias.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 05:54 .

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

kylecouch, I am seeing it from your perspective. I'm also seeing it from Moiassi's and Rip504's perspective.

Given your latest response, it sounds like you've blown the whole notion of what I've been saying out of proportion. I'm not saying Renegades suck because of this... because they don't. This is about choices. You mention extra things that the Paragon choice grants and don't consider that a plus for the Paragon choice... when in basically any other circumstance (like platform exclusive content) it's considered an advantage...

You all just seem to not feel the game can be critiqued regarding this matter... and seem to refuse looking at what's been presented by the game itself (not just my conclusions or your own personal notions) to draw your conclusions. You like certain outcomes that have happened thusfar? So do I... but they shouldn't be isolated exclusively to one color (red or blue) in order to get that kind of outcome.... it removes the notion of making a meaningful choice.  It has nothing to do with a Paragon/Renegade way of thinking.

So lets make this simple and wind this discussion down:

What would you consider to be a beneficial component to a choice? What would have to happen in a situation to have a more "positive" outcome compared to another?

If your arguement is that in-game benefits/positive outcomes to decisions cannot be defined (be they more lives saved, extra content and cameos, positive validation, or whatever) and are relative to the player only... then it makes sense why you have such a hard time with what I'm presenting and the issue people are arguing over. Not much to say to someone that doesn't feel a more positive, content-filled outcome can be quantified.

There is a difference between having less content and personally not minding it. You can enjoy what was on display... but that still doesn't preclude more content (etc. etc.) being available had you made a different choice.  And for the record, the whole "5 min for Renegades and 40 hours for Paragons" was an "extreme" example to illustrate clearly that the issue is less content for one and more for the other (among other things)... and that they are not equal.

Thank you for addressing me as sir and not riding off the handle.  I do appreciate even-tempered conversations.  Should you not mind, I'd appreciate you taking some time to understand the arguement I'm presenting regarding a game about choices and really consider it... weigh it out or atleast answer the questions I asked in this post.

I know what your saying...it's not the relevence of the content...its the fact they exsist...I understand that. However adding more useless content just to create some shoddy semblence of "balance" seems like a waste of possible resorces imo. The Paragons cameos are shoddy at best, trying to force cameos for Renegades too would just make those even crappier...which would lead to complaints that Paragon's got better cameos. The Shiala thing...imo...does not matter AT ALL...you still get the content...it shouldn't matter who gives it to you. Why would they also bother with some random ExoGeni scientist just to thank you for killing Rachni? I mean no one should thank you for genocide even if they thought it was nessesary. The Council...yes Paragons get to talk to them and Renegades don't...a conversation that ultimately means nothing more then what Renegades get from a benefits perspective. Rip's perspective of the human Council is one I agree with...from a story standpoint the human Council has no reason at all to talk to you...they don't owe you anything unlike the Alien council. Not to mention dealing with a pusedo Cerberus agent would make them look even worse then they already do...not a smart idea. 

Instead of thinking from a strickly mechanic perspective...try instead thinking about the story jusifications for content (or lack thereof). This would probably make it easier to accept...adding things to make everything exactly even is kind of a waste...Paragon and Renegade are inherently suppose to be different, if you simply generate content to make Renegade "even" with Paragon that defeats the purpose of having seperate paths to follow. Neaither is suppose to have the things the other has (even though they can because Pure Red and Pure Blue does not = Renegade and Paragon.) For example...Renegades have the peace of mind that Rachni can never betray you, while Paragon's (despite that random cameo) has to worry about the possibility of berayal (just like Cerberus) In this sense Renegades are better off...because they delt with it and can put it out of mind. Renegades should have known when originally makign the choice that there is a chance she was honest...and that they might benefit from her help...however Renegades didnt want to take that chance...how is this unfair? You knew the possible risks and benefits when origianlly making the choice, you decided that you weren't taking the chance that bad thigns could happen later. Meanwhile Paragons have to sit there and worry if things will be ok...while the Renegade can just point and laugh at their anguish because they dont have to worry about it. 
Lastly...ME2 could not really have consequences...the game still had to be shoehorned toward one definitive ending so ME3 can start properly...however ME3 is the end of the road...and all the consequences made throughout the series will finally begin...and the different choices and combinations of such will lead to what they claimed was over 1000 varitations.
 
I mean if it make you feel any better...Paragons never got Conrad Verner...we got some weird Renegade thing that made no sense. Although after hearing the Paragon audio I have to say the Renegade one is far more funny. 

What I'm getting from you is "I sacrifieced the DA...so there should be a Renegade replacement. I killed the Rachni...there should be a Renegade replacement." etc...if this is the case...theres absolutly no point in ever thinking about a decision because they would be inter changeable....which is not the point of Paragon and Renegade...they are SUPPOSE to be different.   

Modifié par kylecouch, 26 juin 2011 - 06:06 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Let me be clear... I'm not asking for a "replacement"... just "equivalent content." It can be bad, it can be good.. but something there exclusively backing the choice in some way.

It would also be nice for the Renegade choice to have a positive result over the Paragon one a few times.

Regarding my viewpoint and appreciating the Renegade story, please consider this. I played Mass Effect 2 when it came out in 2010 and I'm only now talking about this.. I'm not noticing this as a "Renegade player" (heck, I'm not a Renegade player, even though I've done a lot of arguing for them).  I'm noticing this from the perspective of a player who sees every choice as a possible solution to the moment's problem and the fun... shouuuld be to decide which choice will lead to the most positive outcome. Others may want the worst outcome... but the point is still that we shouldn't "know" before picking the choice which outcome will result in the most positive one (etc.).

As far as cameos... they don't have to thank anyone to cross Shepard's path...  And positive outcomes don't have to mention Shepard or thank Shepard to be presented as such.

Content-wise they should be equal... if one has a cameo, so should the other... having that there or validating a choice doesn't mean they're the same.... because the choices aren't the same.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 06:45 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

This is also why I'm glad Casey mentioned this... and it's good because I don't think he would've mentioned it if he didn't atleast slightly notice that it was an issue:

"It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end." - Casey Hudson on ME3 Paragon/Renegade choices

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 06:41 .

[TheRevanchist]

Having a scientist just restate that you killed the Rachni would be the biggest waste of resource possible...at least the Paragon provides somthing semi-useful...and to clarify...we dont KNOW if all the Paragon's choices are already better then Renegades...because the games not out yet. When you originally make the choice...you DONT know which is has the outcome you desire. What could possibly be equivilent of the Rachni decision without some bulls*** Deus Ex Machina replacement?

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

This is also why I'm glad Casey mentioned this... and it's good because I don't think he would've mentioned it if he didn't atleast slightly notice that it was an issue:

"It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end." - Casey Hudson on ME3 Paragon/Renegade choices

But thats exactly what your getting...your sacrificeing lives because you think it's nessasary for the greater good. Weather it actually is or not is up to you to interpret. But by this description thats exactly what were getting.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

You could have something like an exogeni merc cross your path (may not know a thing about the Rachni queen) and appreciated your help there and heard what you did at the battle of the Citadel... they could even offer mercenary services to you. Not the same as an army of Rachni, but a small team can be just as effective as one in the right situation.

Or maybe you meet someone completely different and unrelated to the Rachni... but something tied exclusively to a Renegade choice... any Renegade choice.

And you're right, we don't KNOW what's in ME3, just ME1 and 2. I've always been talking about what's been shown thusfar in the first 2 games... and what that could mean if the trend continued into Mass Effect 3.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

This is also why I'm glad Casey mentioned this... and it's good because I don't think he would've mentioned it if he didn't atleast slightly notice that it was an issue:

"It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end." - Casey Hudson on ME3 Paragon/Renegade choices

But thats exactly what your getting...your sacrificeing lives because you think it's nessasary for the greater good. Weather it actually is or not is up to you to interpret. But by this description thats exactly what were getting.

It may well be the "greater good" in the 3rd game... but in the first 2 games... those sacrifices were unnecessary as the deed can get done without it... running anywhere from the Council to Zaeed's loyalty.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 07:04 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

And yet despite this lack of tangible benefits (just someone and their army that wants to ally with you against the Reapers), they were still there (exclusively) to present it.  The Renegade choices lead to no equivalent cameo or exclusive content.  And to restate in advance, no one's asking for a Renegade Rachni cameo.

The question was 'what defines long term.' My answer is 'epilogue of ME3 or unless literally specified in the epilogue 'happily ever after', later.

Now you are changing the question again back to the current intangible benefits such as a currently unfulfilled promise.

The Feros survivors are suffering ill effects that noone can find the cause of. This wasn't immediately true in ME1. These complications set in later.

Cool man.

Is that an acknowledgement or a dismissal?

Hmm, I'd think about this one a bit more.  Previous offenses you had no way of stopping (because you didn't know)... later offenses (when you have the power to do something) would be on your hands... but luckily the game presents no such thing for the Paragon choice (whew).

As a renegade you understand the consequences and don't have to be told about them blatently. It is not like the Blue Suns tag all their victims. Luckily you think like a renegade and don't need your hand held to tell you that you did the right thing. (whew indeed)

He is still out there and may well do something nasty in ME3... but for the first 2 games?  He's not doing anything... nothing negative to report.

Pardon? In the first game, Balak tried to kill an entire colony. Gosh he hasn't managed to pull off something similar in two years. Neither did Osama in a lot more than 2 years in RL. Should we have just ignored the Taliban?

It was short term, but going on what we have to go on... the entire crew favors the Paragon choice... I'm glad you atleast don't argue with this one...

They act like idiots though. Whoever advises you to blow the base immediately essentially tells you that you shouldn't have listened to them. Why should you listen to them now? It is bizarre enough that it is more likely to be another Conrad Verner type bug.

Believe me, I understand that ME3 is likely to change things (which is why I made that thread regarding Casey's quote... and I'm glad that things are looking to be more balanced)... but it still doesn't excuse the general favoritism (as it could be defined by those that consider it a usable term) the first 2 games have toward the Paragon choices.

It's fine to have Paragon/Renegade actions being consistent... but not the consequences... otherwise the choice becomes predictable.  It's fine to have cameos and exclusive content for Paragon choices... but that's no reason to skimp on a Renegade equivalent choice... otherwise it becomes uneven.  It's fine to have events and characters positively validate the decisions a Paragon makes... but to not do the same for Renegade choices (atleast some of the time) makes for a narrative bias.

The problem is that if you see it as favouritism, there isn't much to discuss with those of us who see it otherwise. Not everyone places as much weight, importance, or interpretation on events in game.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 26 juin 2011 - 07:06 .

[TheRevanchist]

Hmm...following that logic...if Bioware was smart...they would have Zaeed retake the Blue Suns after killing Vido and pledge the Blue Suns to your cause...theres your replacement.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

You could have something like an exogeni merc cross your path (may not know a thing about the Rachni queen) and appreciated your help there and heard what you did at the battle of the Citadel... they could even offer mercenary services to you. Not the same as an army of Rachni, but a small team can be just as effective as one in the right situation.

Or maybe you meet someone completely different and unrelated to the Rachni... but something tied exclusively to a Renegade choice... any Renegade choice.

And you're right, we don't KNOW what's in ME3, just ME1 and 2. I've always been talking about what's been shown thusfar in the first 2 games... and what that could mean if the trend continued into Mass Effect 3.

The mercs at the research station all died trying to kill Shepard. Those at the starport had a more immediate potential Geth problem and weren't harmed if the Queen is released so there is no reason why they wouldn't offer to help in both cases. Noone at the starport even knew about the Rachni and there is no reason why TPTB wouldn't cover the whole incident up.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

The question was 'what defines long term.' My answer is 'epilogue of ME3 or unless literally specified in the epilogue 'happily ever after', later.

Cool then, in that case you're absolutely right.. we have no idea.  But I'm only talking about what's been shown thusfar... in the games we can see and play.

Now you are changing the question again back to the current intangible benefits such as a currently unfulfilled promise.

That's cool that you don't see the promise itself as a benefit (even if unfulfilled, it's a positive thing).

Is that an acknowledgement or a dismissal?

I think it's cool, they're suffering side effects, but they survived... nothing really negative to report... they're survivors suffering side-effects from an ordeal.

As a renegade you understand the consequences and don't have to be told about them blatently. It is not like the Blue Suns tag all their victims. Luckily you think like a renegade and don't need your hand held to tell you that you did the right thing. (whew indeed)

Neither Shepard needs to be told that they did the right thing.  But there's still nothing wrong with the gamer seeing the positive (as well as negative) aspects to their choices instead of just one or the other (be it short or long-term).

Pardon? In the first game, Balak tried to kill an entire colony. Gosh he hasn't managed to pull off something similar in two years. Neither did Osama in a lot more than 2 years in RL. Should we have just ignored the Taliban?

I'm sure authorities are looking for him like they did with Osama... and apparently he was stopped before doing something like that again.  Nothing negative to report.

They act like idiots though. Whoever advises you to blow the base immediately essentially tells you that you shouldn't have listened to them. Why should you listen to them now? It is bizarre enough that it is more likely to be another Conrad Verner type bug.

They seem like idiots unless you feel it's smart for your squad to love them some Paragon choices... because they all love the Paragon choice.  You not considering this about-face squad reaction as Paragon favoritism isn't because the evidence doesn't fit... it's a prime example.

The problem is that if you see it as favouritism, there isn't much to discuss with those of us who see it otherwise. Not everyone places as much weight, importance, or interpretation on events in game.

And that's fine considering your reasoning of it being relative to the player.  If you have no definition of "better" or "more positive/more content" when it comes to outcomes to the choices, there's no way you'll see what I'm saying.  Maybe some players are plot masochists and love when no positive validation comes from the choices they made... but I see it as an imbalance.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...

Hmm...following that logic...if Bioware was smart...they would have Zaeed retake the Blue Suns after killing Vido and pledge the Blue Suns to your cause...theres your replacement.

They are smart, and if Zaeed was able to command the Blue Suns that indeed would be a Renegade outcome unique from the Paragon choice that's actual unique content (and a positive validation for the choice).

Moiaussi wrote...

The mercs at the research station all died trying to kill Shepard. Those at the starport had a more immediate potential Geth problem and weren't harmed if the Queen is released so there is no reason why they wouldn't offer to help in both cases. Noone at the starport even knew about the Rachni and there is no reason why TPTB wouldn't cover the whole incident up.

They could offer to help in both cases... but maybe they decide to help Shepard because of an exclusive choice he made... like how he handled the battle at the Citadel.  There's a lot of things that could've happened.

In other RPGs, like Oblivion, not everyone is attracted to the same things, words, or actions.  There could've been some of that here without changing the events of a Renegade choice.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Hmm...following that logic...if Bioware was smart...they would have Zaeed retake the Blue Suns after killing Vido and pledge the Blue Suns to your cause...theres your replacement.

They are smart, and if Zaeed was able to command the Blue Suns that indeed would be a Renegade outcome unique from the Paragon choice that's actual unique content (and a positive validation for the choice).

Moiaussi wrote...

The mercs at the research station all died trying to kill Shepard. Those at the starport had a more immediate potential Geth problem and weren't harmed if the Queen is released so there is no reason why they wouldn't offer to help in both cases. Noone at the starport even knew about the Rachni and there is no reason why TPTB wouldn't cover the whole incident up.

They could offer to help in both cases... but maybe they decide to help Shepard because of an exclusive choice he made... like how he handled the battle at the Citadel.  There's a lot of things that could've happened.

In other RPGs, like Oblivion, not everyone is attracted to the same things, words, or actions.  There could've been some of that here without changing the events of a Renegade choice.

DA2 says otherwise sadly...as does Ashley's new appearence.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Hmm...following that logic...if Bioware was smart...they would have Zaeed retake the Blue Suns after killing Vido and pledge the Blue Suns to your cause...theres your replacement.

They are smart, and if Zaeed was able to command the Blue Suns that indeed would be a Renegade outcome unique from the Paragon choice that's actual unique content (and a positive validation for the choice).

Moiaussi wrote...

The mercs at the research station all died trying to kill Shepard. Those at the starport had a more immediate potential Geth problem and weren't harmed if the Queen is released so there is no reason why they wouldn't offer to help in both cases. Noone at the starport even knew about the Rachni and there is no reason why TPTB wouldn't cover the whole incident up.

They could offer to help in both cases... but maybe they decide to help Shepard because of an exclusive choice he made... like how he handled the battle at the Citadel.  There's a lot of things that could've happened.

In other RPGs, like Oblivion, not everyone is attracted to the same things, words, or actions.  There could've been some of that here without changing the events of a Renegade choice.

DA2 says otherwise sadly...as does Ashley's new appearence.

lol, DA2 outsold DA1 didn't it? (no I guess not, lol)

Apparently they sold a million copies faster than they did with DA1... not sure what the final sales numbers are though.

Ashley... hmm yeah I prefer her old look but who knows, she may look better in motion... definitely glad I stuck with her though, lol.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 07:53 .

[Rip504]

@ Mr. Gogeta34
This kinda helps prove my point. You misunderstand the context of "I'm Done" and tell me I am frustrated. Then I explain to you I am not. Then you explain to my why I feel something. It is my feelings,I know them better then you. Acknowledge you were simply wrong. I was not frustrated just done for the day. No I didn't clarify,but you assumed wrong.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
"but they shouldn't be isolated exclusively to one color"

This is not true. None of the content is exclusive to one party,either party can have it,be it blue or red. Yes you pick blue dialog to keep the queen alive. Red to kill her. Nothing after that happens. (Illium) Just because you pick Blue does not make you Paragon. A renegade can pick blue here and there. The content is not exclusive,the player decides what to do with it.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
"I'm not asking for a "replacement"... just "equivalent content.""

When you are asking for an Equal outcome to the Rachni choice,you indeed are asking for a replacement from what the Renegades has.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Content-wise they should be equal... if one has a cameo, so should the other... having that there or validating a choice doesn't mean they're the same.... because the choices aren't the same.

In your opinion both should have cameos. If I killed them. I do not want a cameo. Life is not fair nor equal. The choices are not the same,no. The content is. Both are validated. Bioware only promised Major plot events to be validated. They defiantly delivered on that promise. Obviously Bioware did not feel both need cameos. If you killed that person,why would you want to be reminded of it? It is a previously resolved situation. Maybe the should have a recap of all events. Seems to be the only way to make you happy.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Or maybe you meet someone completely different and unrelated to the Rachni... but something tied exclusively to a Renegade choice... any Renegade choice.

The Paragon does not have exclusive content,why ask for something special? The content is not exclusive.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
"And you're right, we don't KNOW what's in ME3, just ME1 and 2. I've always been talking about what's been shown thusfar in the first 2 games... and what that could mean if the trend continued into Mass Effect 3. "

 And we are telling you it is absurd to assume that Bioware favors the Paragons based on what we know in the last 2 games,until we know the true outcomes of our decisions.Anything before that is a random assumption & opinion based on whatever.
We do not agree that 3-4 small non plot related items(THAT ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE) is Bioware favoring Paragons with extra content. The content is there. You decide what to do with it. Nothing new was added. Old unresolved content was resolved and mentioned.

Positive effect is decided by the individual player,not you. And why does an individual Renegade"red" choice have to be better then a Paragon choice here and there. Defeats the argument of being equal In ME3. As Many of us do not feel this way about ME1 &ME2.
Casey states(Your fav) That Paragon and Renegade are not meant to be seen as good/evil wrong/right. So why should their outcomes be considered so? They are meant to be different (while using the SAME content.) and they are.

Modifié par Rip504, 26 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Cool then, in that case you're absolutely right.. we have no idea.  But I'm only talking about what's been shown thusfar... in the games we can see and play.

Actually this particular line of discussion was regarding tangible effects. So far there are none other than promises (which in that they are not realized, are intangible).

I think it's cool, they're suffering side effects, but they survived... nothing really negative to report... they're survivors suffering side-effects from an ordeal.

Gosh, if you don't kill them, people survive. Please tell me that you don't count that as 'evidence.' The fact that the nature of their condition suggests the threat might not be gone yet does not equate to 'nothing to report.'

Neither Shepard needs to be told that they did the right thing.  But there's still nothing wrong with the gamer seeing the positive (as well as negative) aspects to their choices instead of just one or the other (be it short or long-term).

Again, doing the politicly correct thing results in more pats on the back for doing 'the right thing.' I thought you said in a prior post this wasn't about that?

I'm sure authorities are looking for him like they did with Osama... and apparently he was stopped before doing something like that again.  Nothing negative to report.

They stopped Osama too. It took rather a lot of lives to do it but they did. Why do you assume that hunting down and/or stopping Balak has been free of cost? Not to mention anyone harmed that simply weren't mentioned in the one line newsbite....

They seem like idiots unless you feel it's smart for your squad to love them some Paragon choices... because they all love the Paragon choice.  You not considering this about-face squad reaction as Paragon favoritism isn't because the evidence doesn't fit... it's a prime example.

If you feel that way you would be choosing paragon all the time regardless of what the renegade outcomes are.

And that's fine considering your reasoning of it being relative to the player.  If you have no definition of "better" or "more positive/more content" when it comes to outcomes to the choices, there's no way you'll see what I'm saying.  Maybe some players are plot masochists and love when no positive validation comes from a choice they made... but I see it as an imbalance.

How about just a different definition of 'better?' We have different philosophies, that doesn't mean I have no preferences or that I have no concept of comparasons. Again, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are masochists (other than possibly in continuing to try to reason with you at all).

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

This kinda helps prove my point. You misunderstand the context of "I'm Done" and tell me I am frustrated. Then I explain to you I am not. Then you explain to my why I feel something. It is my feelings,I know them better then you. Acknowledge you were simply wrong. I was not frustrated just done for the day. No I didn't clarify,but you assumed wrong.

You gave an expression of annoyance, that's all frustration is.. it doesn't have to mean your face is getting red or something, lol.  I posted the definition and your comment, they line up.

This is not true. None of the content is exclusive to one party,either party can have it,be it blue or red. Yes you pick blue dialog to keep the queen alive. Red to kill her. Nothing after that happens. (Illium) Just because you pick Blue does not make you Paragon. A renegade can pick blue here and there. The content is not exclusive,the player decides what to do with it.

I getcha, but I'm not talking about Paragons/Renegades themselves... I'm talking about the Paragon/Renegade choices.  The red choice vs the blue choice and their respective outcomes.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

When you are asking for an Equal outcome to the Rachni choice,you indeed are asking for a replacement from what they Renegades has.

Equal content.  The Rachni representative didn't have to show up at all... but she did... so a Renegade choice can do the same thing (it doesn't have to even be to the Rachni choice) but something to the canon Renegade story (like the Rachni is to the Paragon story.

In your opinion both should have cameos. If I killed them. I do not want a cameo. Life is not fair nor equal. The choices are not the same,no. The content is. Both are validated. Bioware only promised Major plot events to be validated. They defiantly delivered on that promise. Obviously Bioware did not feel both need cameos. If you killed that person,why would you want to be reminded of it? It is a previously resolved situation. Maybe the should have a recap of all events. Seems to be the only way to make you happy.

Again, no one's asking for people that were killed to somehow return.  It's about content and positive validation.

The Paragon does not have exclusive content,why ask for something special? The content is not exclusive.

The Paragon choice leads to an exclusive Asari representative appearing.  That is content exclusive to the Paragon choice.  It is exclusive, you cannot get to it if you don't go blue.

 And we are telling you it is absurd to assume that Bioware favors the Paragons based on what we know in the last 2 games,until we know the true outcomes of our decisions.Anything before that is a random assumption & opinion based on whatever.

You can look at the first 2 games and see if the narrative leans toward one side or another.  If it changes in ME3... then that's what it'd be... a change... a good change, but a change nonetheless.  If you look at the 2 games, you're looking at the 2 games.  If you're trying to look at all 3 then yes, natrually you'd need to wait or you would be guessing.  Fortunately, I'm only looking at the games we can look at.

We do not agree that 3-4 small non plot related items(THAT ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE) is Bioware favoring Paragons with extra content. The content is there. You decide what to do with it. Nothing new was added. Old unresolved content was resolved and mentioned.

If your referencing what I was claiming as Paragon-exclusive items, then yes, it is exclusive to the Paragon choice.  If you make a different choice, you don't get that content.

Positive effect is decided by the individual player,not you. And why does an individual Renegade"red" choice have to be better then a Paragon choice here and there. Defeats the argument of being equal In ME3. As Many of us do not feel this way about ME1 &ME2.
Casey states(Your fav) That Paragon and Renegade are not meant to be seen as good/evil wrong/right. So why should their outcomes be considered so? They are meant to be different (while using the SAME content.) and they are.

So you feel positive effects can't be generally agreed upon (with regards to a protagonist hero)... that explains it.  So you don't believe in things like happy or sad endings because they're all relative to the individual too, correct?  You also don't seem to believe that extra content exists because it only matters whether you like the extra stuff or not... or something like that right?

Okay then, this has been an interesting discussion and thanks for clarifying your view for me.  I understand now why you don't understand and I'll respect that.  We'd need to discuss fundamentals before productively discussing this issue together again.  

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 08:49 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Actually this particular line of discussion was regarding tangible effects. So far there are none other than promises (which in that they are not realized, are intangible).

Extra/Exclusive content is the key thing.  A service is never tangible... but nonetheless positive.  I also missed where I was talking about tangible effects... by all means quote me and refresh my memory.

Gosh, if you don't kill them, people survive. Please tell me that you don't count that as 'evidence.' The fact that the nature of their condition suggests the threat might not be gone yet does not equate to 'nothing to report.'

The Thorian is dead, the threat was Thorian mind control was it not?.  The threat is gone for now unless a new threat rises... but such a threat has not been mentioned, so nothing to report.

Again, doing the politicly correct thing results in more pats on the back for doing 'the right thing.' I thought you said in a prior post this wasn't about that?

In so many words, I said pats on the back aren't necessary to convey a positive aspect to a choice made.  And yes, it's not specifically about people literally saying "Thank you" to Shepard.

They stopped Osama too. It took rather a lot of lives to do it but they did. Why do you assume that hunting down and/or stopping Balak has been free of cost? Not to mention anyone harmed that simply weren't mentioned in the one line newsbite....

How do you know it took a lot of lives to bring down Osama?  The news right?   You hear anything like that for hunting Balak?  On that front, there's nothing to report.

If you feel that way you would be choosing paragon all the time regardless of what the renegade outcomes are.

If I feel what way?  That Paragon choices are being favored?  No... I'd do what I'm doing now... making an informal complaint about it and hope that they fix it.

How about just a different definition of 'better?' We have different philosophies, that doesn't mean I have no preferences or that I have no concept of comparasons. Again, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are masochists (other than possibly in continuing to try to reason with you at all).

Yes, tell me about what you view to be a "more positive outcome" than another.  Assume that both outcomes achieve their basic objective... but now... what makes an outcome more positive or content-filled than another to you?

Put some examples out there and lets look at it... this should be interesting... if you're up to it.

For the record, regarding your last comment... from what I can tell you're not trying to reason with me, you're just arguing... but you can prove me wrong on that...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 08:40 .

[TheRevanchist]

BiowEAre's goal was probably indeed money... as Mr Croshaw points out http://www.escapistm...8-Dragon-Age-II Because it sure as hell wasn't customer satisfation.

As a result I'm sure DA3 sales will be alot more scewed and slow...since everyone now knows Bioware is capable of failure.

Modifié par kylecouch, 26 juin 2011 - 08:57 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...

BiowEAre's goal was probably indeed money... as Mr Croshaw points out http://www.escapistm...8-Dragon-Age-II Because it sure as hell wasn't customer satisfation.

lol ftw, I have heard stories about how bad DA2 was...  Fortunately, the Mass Effect team is a different group and for my money, the best team they've got.  Out of all the recent bioware games, the Mass Effect team has delivered the most polished ones.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 juin 2011 - 08:45 .

[Rip504]

And you still fail to acknowledge you were wrong about the frustration. No you rather explain it to me some more. I acknowledged why you did it.And also acknowledged it was wrong. It seems to me that you are unwilling to see anything else,but what you decide is truth. Why should I read or comment to the rest?

It was not an expression of annoyance. It was an expression of me having other things to do. I am done, does not equal frustration. That was your wrong interpretation of my words. Words can have many meanings,more so then just what you say it means. It was my words. They did not mean what you interpreted. They meant what I said they meant. Why push that any further? Because you are unwilling to be wrong or corrected. And all of your opinions and assumptions are facts. After I told you twice I was not,you explained to me how those words meant I was. They line up. Wow, you are still wrong.

As you are the one not willing to see it from another's PoV. Bioware does not decide what is wright,wrong,good,evil or what your individual best outcome is. The individual player does, People are different. They will always have different opinions. Yours are not always hard facts.

The Rachni(if alive) is an unresolved issue,and it would be ignorant not to mention this issue in ME2. A dead queen= a resolved situation. A Shepard with an alive Rachni Queen should be interested in what she is doing. A Shepard with a dead Queen should... have a conversation about a dead queen? Wow awesome,can't wait to play that. (Sarcasm.)

I Never said you want dead people to return,Really? How did you get that? What is positive about a Renegade? Warm cozy good feelings are meant for the Paragon. What Positive effects do the Paragons get? What positive effects do you want? More hit damage? Nothing positive happens. Resolving issues is called gameplay,not positive effects,yea it could be considered so. But really isn't. It unresolved content from ME1 being Resolved in ME2. If you resolved this content in ME1,there is no senseable reason for it to be in ME2. Both Parties are validated. Major plot events are acknowledged. Now you are asking for non-sense. Accusing the Paragon of something that is not true. I still think you are misunderstanding how the morality and content system works. And will refuse to ever see it in a different light. O well.

The Asari rep can and has Renegade dialog options. Meaning she was built to appear in a Renegades playthrough. Equaling non-exclusive content. Obviously if you kill the Queen she is dead. There is nothing to be had. I'm glad we agree on that. "If you make a different choice, you don't get that content." Duh! That's what you are complaining about. The outcomes of your decision. You feel a certain way,not proving it. One Kills Her,One save her,But It could be a Renegade saving her,and a Paragon killing her. The individual choice will not make you a Renegade or Paragon.

I agree,if you are telling me others tell you what is right and wrong,and do not have an opinion of the matter yourself,we may need to discuss fundamentals.
Also Re-read your own post(the bottom part). Obviously I believe in sad and good ending. I determine what is sad and good in my opinion,Not Bioware. Duh. Come on. My liking or disliking the content has not been brought up once. And has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am the one who was no problem with the game. You do. Now that is making something up out of thin air. Your assumptions are starting to run wild.

Shepard's story is not based on one set of events. It changes and spirals for different players. What you are starting to say makes no sense. The whole point of ME is for it to be YOUR(The individual's) Shepard's story. You decide what is right,wrong,happy,sad etc. It's an RPG being told from your PoV. Not Bioware's or someone else. The individual does decide a great deal in their version of Shepard's story. It is meant to change and be different.

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

BiowEAre's goal was probably indeed money... as Mr Croshaw points out http://www.escapistm...8-Dragon-Age-II Because it sure as hell wasn't customer satisfation.

lol ftw, I have heard stories about how bad DA2 was...  Fortunately, the Mass Effect team is a different group and for my money, the best team they've got.  Out of all the recent bioware games, the Mass Effect team has delivered the most polished ones.

perhaps...but if Genesis and Arrivel are anything to go by....ME3 might just be DA2....well 2...  <--- Genisis in case youve never seen it...its pretty bad...

[Rip504]

Theoretical Example:

If someone or something took Tali(against her will) I would kill as many innocents as it took to get her back. Most likely to be considered Renegade,but if I let her die we save many lives and gain random positive items and praise.Most likely to be considered Paragon.

There is no way not saving Tali could be considered the "better" outcome in any of my Shepard's playthrough. You could argue otherwise,but would be pointless to do so. It is an individual Shepard,not yours. What you think is best,may not be best for the rest of us. No matter the outcomes. Personal choice means a lot in ME. It's slightly built around it.

Now if you are trying to start a poll and see how many of us think what is the better outcome,then that is one thing. But to say your opinion is the only and best outcome,is not true. Even if the majority of people would agree with either of us,It wouldn't make us right. As there is no right choice,just your Shepard's choice. Stop worrying about what someone else is getting. And live in your Shepard's world. See how these choices(an individual deems better) effects your world.

Modifié par Rip504, 26 juin 2011 - 09:33 .

[TheRevanchist]

slightly he says....lol