347 réponses à ce sujet

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I'm not using that arguement against you.  I'm saying that I view Shepard's choices beyond Paragon/Renegade as just equal options to solve any given scenario.  Where each action is worth thinking about with regards to achieving the objective and being a hero.

I have stated this,now you are. What would you call that?

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Incorrect, I beat the game last year... but I've still been playing it this year.  I am also not a Paragon, I'm a Paragade... got a little of both.  Again, I don't treat Paragon and Renegade like sides of a team where you pick just one and the rest is for another playthrough.

Wow I didn't speak in specifics. No one said you play either or a certain way,That's you putting words in others mouths. It's getting old. I told you I didn't care,so you explain it to me? Troll.

Paragade,that's is making a Renegade choice in your opinion,you have stated this more then once,now it's either or depending on the mood. I have been over this more then once. It is a choice. Renegade/Paragon is a play style that is determined by the way you string together the events of the game. At the end of the day Either your Paragon or Renegade bar is more full then the other. Meaning you are either a Paragon or Renegade. No such thing as a Paragade. No you are a paragon who has made a tough choice here and there. Do not repeat things I am saying to me. (The concept of a Paragade or a Renegon is the only way I play,and the way I think the game is meant to be played.)

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
The trends aren't how I feel, they're what's in the game.  Renegades do worry about saving lives... just not every life all the time (same for Paragons).  Again, Renegades are heroes too...

A different type of hero. Or can you not grasp this simple concept?

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Incorrect.  I don't play as a Paragon... even though I made an isolated Paragon choice...  Again, I see the choices as moods and judgements that Shepard has... he could do any of them at any moment and it'd still be the same Shepard.

Think about those trends...

I have brought this to your attention,not the other way around. How many times have I said a Paragon can have a dead Rachni queen. Or vice versa. Individual choice does not make you one or the other. I have stated this many times. I am glad you finally agree.

Modifié par Rip504, 27 juin 2011 - 12:44 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

I have stated this,now you are. What would you call that?

Besides agreement?  Restating something I mentioned before we ever spoke.  That's where the whole notion of deflated choice (given the trends) is coming from.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Wow I didn't speak in specifics. No one said you play either or a certain way,That's you putting words in others mouths. It's getting old. I told you I didn't care,so you explain it to me? Troll.

You said I'm a Paragon, I said I'm not... did I miss something?

Paragade,that's is making a Renegade choice in your opinion,you have stated this more then once,now it's either or depending on the mood. I have been over this more then once. It is a choice. Renegade/Paragon is a play style that is determined by the way you string together the events of the game. At the end of the day Either your Paragon or Renegade bar is more full then the other. Meaning you are either a Paragon or Renegade. No such thing as a Paragade. No you are a paragon who has made a tough choice here and there. Do not repeat things I am saying to me.

You view it as a playstyle, I view it as 2 of however many choices to any given scenario.  Granted that you are right in that it's a playstyle if you make it such (by concentrating on those choices).

I am glad you feel that I've 'made a tough choice here and there' atleast... because that's the issue at hand.  Playing the game like I do, the notion of a tough choice is challenged by the aforementioned trends I was talking about.  If I sacrificed the Council to ensure victory over Sovereign for example... it's now apparent that the Paragon choice consistently allows the endagered party to be saved while the objective is still achieved... No need to sacrifice etc. etc.

Entertain the notion and try to see where I'm coming from. 

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

A different type of hero. Or can you not grasp this simple concept?

I grasp it, it just doesn't matter, because he's still a hero.. and the game (both games actually) prove that he does things to protect others and guard against threats.  He also can show compassion (even if he's agressive about it).

I have brought this to your attention,not the other way around. How many times have I said a Paragon can have a dead Rachni queen. Or vice versa. Individual choice does not make you one or the other. I have stated this many times. I am glad you finally agree.

To restate once more.. the issue is the choices...  A Paragon has to make a Renegade choice to have a dead Rachni queen.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 juin 2011 - 12:55 .

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

You view it as a playstyle, I view it as 2 of however many choices
to any given scenario.  Granted that you are right in that it's a
playstyle if you make it such (by concentrating on those choices).



To restate once more.. the issue is the choices...  A Paragon has to make a Renegade choice to have a dead Rachni queen.

Bioware states it is a play style. I just agree with them.

Besides contradicting yourself what are you trying to accomplish? We just said the individual choice is still Shepard being Shepard. So it would have to be a playstle strung together. Biowares states this,not I. So it's just a choice anyone can make,unless it is a Paragon/Renegade making a Paragon/Renegade choice. Ok that makes no sense. If it is a choice either can make,then it is a simple choice. The individual choice does not make you Paragon/Renegade. No it simply does not.

Yes you did miss something,you stated you play as a Paragon,should I check the message? No. There are 2 styles,you keep telling us you do not play as a renegade. It's common sense. You have proved you are doing nothing but talking until you feel you are right. And with me,it will Never happen. So. There we have it.

[FrozenShadow]

Rip504 wrote...

1) Destroying the cure and cure in general.

2) The Collector base(IMO) seems as if it will backfire either way,as it is a good starting point for Cerberus indoctrination. But who knows.

3) Well if you have an all Human Council,Humanity now has every benefit that could bring,which could be countless,Intel,weapons,allies,resources.etc.

4) If you kill Wrex,and destroy the Krogan cure,maybe your anti-alien or Anti-Krogan,or simply think the best solution for the Krogans is to stay the way they are now.

5) Now if you are punished for killing Wrex and destroying the cure,you kind of deserve to be punished by the Krogans,or do you disagree.? I would expect the Krogans to hate Shepard(and maybe Humanity) for these actions(Potentially). But If Shepard can still win the war without the United Krogan,is it really a punishment,or did Shepard get what Shepard wanted. A Krogan species on the brink of extinction? No future threats. No potential Krogan threat could be what some are aiming for,when suppressing a species.

1) Well this is something I can really see backfiring in somewhere in the future. There could be Krogan rebellion 2.0. And destroying the cure will more than like make Salarian's and possible Turians to support you and they might be more willing to fight at your side. And it's quite possible that Krogans will always stay awfully blood thirsty. Then again saving that one Krogan princess might be enough good to get Krogan support, even being renegade. That's because it seems that she really is fertile and even genophage free, which would mean that Krogans could add their numbers without the cure and that way they could give their support to you in incoming war.

However why I save the cure is that 1. I think that Krogans have suffered enough and with Wrex (I guess it's some what the same with Wreav) they could actually learn to live with other races quite peacefully, not just trying to conquer them all. Krogans were introduced to technology too fast and they didn't have time to mature peacefully with this new technology like other races. That leads to them becoming even more battle hungry, than they were before. 2. Nothing is more efficient that Krogan, who had purpose or reason to fight (I guess Wrex even said something like this in some point). And telling them that there is possible cure for Genophage is definitely something, which would make them fight more willingly and harder.

Anyway, I can see renegeda option in this actually being logic and somewhat beneficial. However I think that Paragon options benefits me and my views better.

2) Yeah, saving base doesn't really look good, especially now that Cerberus had become your enemy. But I would really like to see, how it's actually beneficial, not just reason for Cerberus becoming your enemy via indoctrination or like that.

3) Now this is actually something, I can see benefitting renegade much better than what saving Council would do. Now while Human council does ignore Shep in ME2 the fact that Reapers are real that they attack on earth will definitely force them to action. And because humanity rule the Council, they could so much easily get the whole Council forces on your side to destroy Reapers. And Council would give its whole support to you now that you had proved them that you had been right all along with your Reapers speeches. Yes, this support might be more of potical and trying to save what is left to save from their reputations, but it's still beneficial to you.

Now with Paragon, I believe, getting Council on your side, even with Reapers attacking on earth is not that forward, I would say. I'm sure that Turian and Asari would much more prefer to protect their own worlds than to go and try to save Earth. The only good supporting factor in here is that Shep had proved Council wrong and because they have constantly ignored Shep, they are in his dept in a way. They had go against the Reapers or else they would totally lose their faces. Because they were warned, but they ignored it.

And I have actually thought that I should kill the Council, even if I'm Paragon, because they really seems to be useless.

4) Well like it was with Rachni if you killed it, you can only do "wrong" decisions to Turian concillor (He complain if killed Rachni and he complains if save it, nothing you do is good enough.)

But seriously I think that the most obvious renegade logic or at least the one I use when playing renegade, is that you're making preemptive move. Both Rachni and Krogans had been serious galactic threat once and you just don't want it to happen again, especially now that Reapers are coming and even with victory the whole galaxy is in ruins. And that situation would make it so more easier for Krogans to start a new war with their fast reproduce. And there wouldn't be enough forces to stop them this time.

So, destroying the cure is actually quite logical choice and not really anti-alien at all. (Though I still like more of my idea that Krogans would have actually learned from their mistakes and they would try to live peacefully in the future. But renegade idea is logic too.)

5) I don't think you would be punished for anything if you renegade. I just see it in a way that being renegade would mean that there are more casulties and that it would be harder to win. Yes, this might sound bad, but I can't help but think it this way. Why? Because with Paragon, you have Rachni in your side, Geth are more powerful and they are against the Reapers. They also wants peace with the Quarian, so all more forces for you. Also there are Council and Krogan issues like I stated above somewhere. So that would mean that you have already 8 most powerful races at your side.

But being Renegade you really have only 4 races at your side side. Humans, Turians, Asari and Salarians. You don't have rachni or really effective Krogans. Only because Geth are weakened, Quarian more like to go to war against them and being renegade you could actually push Quarian to war against the Geth with you words (not sure have much that would effect, but still). And this Quarian/Geth war is something, where is now winners and you just lose two races just before Reapers come.

So, that's half less forces for renegades than it's for Paragons. And personally I help but see this being disadvantage for Renegades. But I really want to see, how it works out in ME3 and how that gap is compensated.

[Rip504]

Decent post. I didn't imply you had to be anti-alien to destroy the cure,only that you could be.

I am personally a Paragon. Good endings and rainbows and such. The idea that the Renegade has to be compensated or have equal content is the real issue here. That is your opinion and may not be Bioware's. They may feel as Renegades are getting what they deserve,to assume life should be fair and equal,just is silly and unrealistic. But it is a game so let's have pretty rainbows for Renegades also.

If the Renegades defeat the Reapers with only 4 races how is this a disadvantage? The Paragon will require more help,meaning the Renegade is better for less content. Oh No,did I just do that. Lol
It is an opinion,not a fact that: Bioware has to address. It is an issue in your opinion. Not mine.

That post was about random suggestions btw,wasn't implying that is my thought process behind it.

I do not feel like breaking down each choice again,But I usually stick to blue and kill the red I want to. No one tells my Shepard what is right and wrong expect my Shepard. Holla.

Still it was a good post,in understanding their are many reasons one can do something. It's not just black and white as Mr.Gogeta34 is suggesting.

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Indeed and all that saving was done without compromising the objective.  Those who are spared have not caused any negative actions to occur (for ME1 and 2).[/quote]

The main objective (stopping the Reapers) isn't accomplished yet, so there is no evidence that said objective isn't compromised.

BDtS you have already secured the asteroid by the time the hostages are at issue, so the main objective is accomplished no matter what you do


[quote]911 was definitely a negative outcome for not stopping bin laden sooner.  But no such negative outcome has been presented to justify the Renegade choice in-game as a "just as good" or "equally right" choice. [/quote]

Way to utterly twist the example. Was there something equivalent to BDtS that Bin Laden attempted before but was stopped and only got away because we valued hostages over taking him down? Did we know precisely where he was before 911? I am pretty sure that it was more than 2 years earlier when he was considered an allied agent. After 911 (which is definately comperale in intent albiet much lesser in scope) we did go to war. There were casualties related to the war, but not with any attempts to capture Osama himself. I can't remember any RL news reports of casualties relating to the actual search rather than the war. The team that took him down suffered no casualties either.

There is no state openly backing Balak though. so we didn't go to war, so no war related casualties. Other than the war, sounds very similar.

[quote]You're right, we only know what the games present.. that's what's being talked about.  The game could've presented more... that's all.  Criminals don't have to confess to be implicated.  Still positive payoffs for the Paragon choices thusfar.[/quote]

Right, you are complaining that saved people are happy at being saved and that noone is thanking us for killing a helpless captive (rachni) or sacrificing hostages.

[quote]If someone teaches you, you do learn from them, but that's not tangible.. you can't "touch" knowledge.  I understand what you meant by it now though.  And to that end, it's like saying you've been given bullets, but you don't know if the gun will misfire yet.  The bullets are still an exclusive positive and the notion of a misfire is only speculation.[/quote]

There is a tangible change in your knowledge, as indicated by a test taken before vs one taken after teaching. If there is no tangible change, then they haven't taught you very well. Many things that are not blatantly visible are still there.  And are you saying that there is no tangible difference between a car before repairs and the same car after repairs?

[quote]Except they're not all self-evident.. and even if they are, just to acknowledge the choice in some way (be it a chance encounter or what have you)... the point is to have "some" exclusive content that positively validates the Renegade choice.  The Paragon choice didn't need a cameo either... they could've been surprise help for Mass Effect 3 (or whatever the result may be).  It was Bioware's choice to put it in there... and they could've likewise chosen some content to positively validate Renegade choices too.  If you do one, why not the other?  Only fair.[/quote]

It is not self evident to you that that someone dead is no longer a potential threat? Really?

[quote]I'm aware... the mind control was organic... it's not like the Thorian used cybornetics.[/quote]

What has that got to do with anything? The spores can be seeds and additionally have mind control effects. In Wrath of Kahn, Kahn controlled Chekov by sticking a parasitic worm in his ear making him susceptable to suggestion. Does that mean the worm had no existance outside of being used as a mind control device?

[quote]Considering that Renegades also have warning signs (and more of them given their almost total lack of positive validation for choices)... I'm just saying the Paragon one is still favored.[/quote]

Thank yous from people you saved are not 'warnings.'

[quote]Right, and I was referring to Anderson.  Shepard tells the Council it's good to have them on his side... and he relays to Anderson that he and the Council are on "good terms" (after the council meeting is over).  I don't think Shepard ever truly trusts everything TIM says as much as feeling like there's no other choice (and there wasn't).[/quote]

That is Udina, who comes into the room after the fact upset that he was left out of the meeting.
 
[quote]I'm not ignoring it just because I bring the other point up.  And it's the fact that they all changed their mind after taking a side previously that further drives the point home regarding Paragon favoritism.  The story shifted to favor the Paragon choice and scold the Renegade one in those epilogue moments.[/quote]

You are not ignoring it, you are just pointing out a different aspect and refusing to include it as part of the context.

[quote]It's been 2 years though.[/quote]

And it took 10 years to track down and kill Osama. That is more rather more than 2 years and on a single planet, not in a large area of space much of which we have negligible diplomatic relations with (i.e. Batarian, Terminus, etc).

[quote]True, and there's also their appearances in the game (even though Renegade Shepard saved people as well)[/quote]

There is noone renegade shep saved that paragon shep didn't also save.

[quote]It's about all of it (positive validation, content, cameos, outcomes).  The saved people aren't saved by the choice... they're saved by the outcome to the choice... and consistently so.  That may sound initially wierd but give it some thought.  Intention doesn't gaurantee the end result (only what Bioware dictates).  In making the Paragon choice, successfully with no negative repercussion events or news present afterwards... just more positive ones.

Compared to the Renegade choice, their choices have (consistently) led to negative repercussions and less content (when their story has enough to support the same amount of content as Paragons).  And to restate, Renegades are still heroes... so demonstrating an upside to the Renegade choice shouldn't be so out of the question... let the game actually illustrate something... like they do for the Paragon choice.  [/quote]

But since there are no actual outcome results that differ from what we already know (saved people stay saved, the Rachni make a promise that may or may not be kept, the Council give you exactly what you get anyway if they were killed), there is nothing extra other than validations.

The Rachni come closest to a tangible benefit, but it is still just a promise at this stage and it is just one decision. A one decision advantage is not a pattern.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

Bioware states it is a play style. I just agree with them.

It is a playstyle if you stick with it.  The "Paragon and Renegade path." 

Besides contradicting yourself what are you trying to accomplish? We just said the individual choice is still Shepard being Shepard. So it would have to be a playstle strung together. Biowares states this,not I. So it's just a choice anyone can make,unless it is a Paragon/Renegade making a Paragon/Renegade choice. Ok that makes no sense. If it is a choice either can make,then it is a simple choice. The individual choice does not make you Paragon/Renegade. No it simply does not.

Again... the issue is the choices.  How is it that you missed this consistently?  The Paragon choice vs the Renegade choice and their respective outcomes.  This has always been about the choice.  If you're going to argue, please stay on topic.

Yes you did miss something,you stated you play as a Paragon,should I check the message? No. There are 2 styles,you keep telling us you do not play as a renegade. It's common sense. You have proved you are doing nothing but talking until you feel you are right. And with me,it will Never happen. So. There we have it.

Yes, check the message... I made it known that I make some Paragon choices... not that I play "as" a Paragon.  I don't play as a Renegade either... I play how I want.. I don't follow a path.  If you follow a path of always picking that choice... then you have a certain playstyle.  Again, I'm a Paragade, I have a little of both.

Common sense would dictate that there's more choices available than Paragon and Renegade... and you don't get Paragon/Renegade points for every choice... (as evidenced once more by what's in the actual game).  This is about choices... which are more than Paragon and Renegade... but we are discussing Paragon and Renegade choices... specifically Paragon favoritism.

Paragon and Renegade is the morality system of Mass Effect... there are choices based on them.  In addition to that fact, you can follow the path of one or the other.  Those are playstyles... or you could mix... I mix.

If a Paragon (someone on the Paragon path up to that point) makes a renegade choice, they have diverted from that path and started down another.  That's how it goes.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 juin 2011 - 01:41 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

The main objective (stopping the Reapers) isn't accomplished yet, so there is no evidence that said objective isn't compromised.[/quote]

The Reapers were stopped, they just weren't defeated or stopped for good.  They did not come through the Citadel relay... they were stopped from doing so.  The objective was completed.


[quote]BDtS you have already secured the asteroid by the time the hostages are at issue, so the main objective is accomplished no matter what you do[/quote]

Mind rephrasing this?



[quote]Way to utterly twist the example. Was there something equivalent to BDtS that Bin Laden attempted before but was stopped and only got away because we valued hostages over taking him down? Did we know precisely where he was before 911? I am pretty sure that it was more than 2 years earlier when he was considered an allied agent. After 911 (which is definately comperale in intent albiet much lesser in scope) we did go to war. There were casualties related to the war, but not with any attempts to capture Osama himself. I can't remember any RL news reports of casualties relating to the actual search rather than the war. The team that took him down suffered no casualties either.[/quote]

The war waged was against Bin Laden's terrorist group... because of Bin Laden.  They were also looking for Bin Laden during this time.  And during that span of time there were casualties that resulted from it.



[quote]There is no state openly backing Balak though. so we didn't go to war, so no war related casualties. Other than the war, sounds very similar.[/quote]

True, there'd definitely be nothing to report there... especially if Balak has no known ties, then no one would know where to look for him.  And no attacks have been claimed by him or reported to be his MO.  Nothing negative to report.


[quote]Right, you are complaining that saved people are happy at being saved and that noone is thanking us for killing a helpless captive (rachni) or sacrificing hostages.[/quote]

It's fine that they're happy, not the issue... they should be happy.  The issue = Positive validation... a demonstrated upside to the Renegade choice presented in-game.


[quote]There is a tangible change in your knowledge, as indicated by a test taken before vs one taken after teaching. If there is no tangible change, then they haven't taught you very well. Many things that are not blatantly visible are still there.  And are you saying that there is no tangible difference between a car before repairs and the same car after repairs?[/quote]

The car is tangible, the service is not.  You can touch the car, but not the service.  But like I said, I understand your meaning.  And the Rachni is promised to be there for you.. even though you don't see them... they're still there... and even then you get to see an ambassador for them.  It's a positive, whether it stays a positive is anyone's guess.. but in Mass Effect 2, their wanting to help is a good thing.


[quote]It is not self evident to you that that someone dead is no longer a potential threat? Really?[/quote]

It is not self evident that killing them was any better than leaving them alive.  Alive, they've done nothing... or positive things as far as the game is concerned.  Positive validation... Renegade choices could use some of it.


[quote]What has that got to do with anything? The spores can be seeds and additionally have mind control effects. In Wrath of Kahn, Kahn controlled Chekov by sticking a parasitic worm in his ear making him susceptable to suggestion. Does that mean the worm had no existance outside of being used as a mind control device?[/quote]

From what we know of the Mass Effect Universe, the spores were used for making thralls and nothing more.  We also know that the effects of the spore drove one person to shoot himself.  It's not easy on people and that's all we seem to be hearing about thusfar.  The Thorian cannot issue any commands or anything of that sort anymore, it's dead.  So the threat as we know it is over.


[quote]Thank yous from people you saved are not 'warnings.' [/quote]

Didn't say they were... where'd you get that from?  Renegade Shepard saved people too... but I guess that doesn't matter...


[quote]That is Udina, who comes into the room after the fact upset that he was left out of the meeting.[/quote]

Cool, but I wasn't talking about that.  I was talking about Shepard and how he viewed his relationship with the Council.
 

[quote]You are not ignoring it, you are just pointing out a different aspect and refusing to include it as part of the context.[/quote]

I don't mind including it.  Before the choice, your squad is mostly silent though some side with the Renegade choice... afterwards, they all favor the Paragon choice... regadless of what you decide. 


[quote]And it took 10 years to track down and kill Osama. That is more rather more than 2 years and on a single planet, not in a large area of space much of which we have negligible diplomatic relations with (i.e. Batarian, Terminus, etc).[/quote]

True, so nothing negative to report.  No casualties from any attempt, no more attacks by Balak... in ME2, it's all good.

On a side note, that'd be kinda funny if Balak died in the Arrival DLC and we didn't even know it, lol



[quote]There is noone renegade shep saved that paragon shep didn't also save.[/quote]

Doesn't change the fact or preclude exclusive content from coming from it.

[quote]
But since there are no actual outcome results that differ from what we already know (saved people stay saved, the Rachni make a promise that may or may not be kept, the Council give you exactly what you get anyway if they were killed), there is nothing extra other than validations.

The Rachni come closest to a tangible benefit, but it is still just a promise at this stage and it is just one decision. A one decision advantage is not a pattern.[/quote]

You get to see the Council you're working with/for.  You get a cameo appearance from a life that was saved that didn't need to be there.  Your squad about-faces and goes full-bore Paragon favoritism at the end of ME2 when their opinion at the time of the choice was the opposite.

Then there's the fact of:  Just because Paragon Shepard "wanted" to save the people he saved, doesn't mean he had to succeed.  Similarly, just because the Renegade feels justified in their choice, doesn't mean the game can't prove it right.  Like the series 24, a lot of bad things happened to Jack Bauer and Jack Bauer did a lot of "bad" things... but the show constantly showed that Jack Bauer was "right" and showed it with actual content.  Other methods would fail but Jack would come in and succeed.  That's positive validation.

Why the hostility toward suggesting Bioware do the same for Renegades in the Mass Effect series? 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 juin 2011 - 02:21 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The Reapers were stopped, they just weren't defeated or stopped for good.  They did not come through the Citadel relay... they were stopped from doing so.  The objective was completed.[/quote]

They were delayed, not stopped (they are still coming at the end of ME1) and the actions in ME2 don't even delay them. Arrival can happen before the suicide mission.

So what are you saying? That choices should have retroactive benefits? Situations to which they can apply haven't happened yet.

[quote]

[quote]BDtS you have already secured the asteroid by the time the hostages are at issue, so the main objective is accomplished no matter what you do[/quote]Mind rephrasing this?[/quote]

The main objective in BDtS is to save the colony. That is accomplished. Killing Balak vs saving the hostages is indepenant of that objective. There is also no obvious relation to the Reaper mission. If you do want to relate it to the Reaper mission, you should ignore it (and all other side missions) to stop Saran ASAP.


[quote]The war waged was against Bin Laden's terrorist group... because of Bin Laden.  They were also looking for Bin Laden during this time.  And during that span of time there were casualties that resulted from it.[/quote]

The war was against the Taliban, who were supporting Al-qaeda. Al-qaeda being a terrorist organization rather than a state made it hard to declare formal war on. Past the initial invasion, the majority of casualties have been at the hands of Taliban partisans. I can't think of any casualties that are specificly attributed to Al-qaeda. There may well be some, but they are incidental compared to the overall operation.


[quote]True, there'd definitely be nothing to report there... especially if Balak has no known ties, then no one would know where to look for him.  And no attacks have been claimed by him or reported to be his MO.  Nothing negative to report.[/quote]

In two years. It took 10 to take Osama down, and that was in a much smaller area. That said, we do know that resources are needing to be allocated to the search, and that does cost resources. If Balak was dead, those resources could be going into colonies, or improving the standard of living, or additional fleet construction or something constructive. No we are not told these things. Surprise surprise we are not given comparative economic data.


[quote]It's fine that they're happy, not the issue... they should be happy.  The issue = Positive validation... a demonstrated upside to the Renegade choice presented in-game.[/quote]

That is a blatantly obvious common sense advantage though. You seem to want some sort of artificial contrived compensation to renegades.


[quote]The car is tangible, the service is not.  You can touch the car, but not the service.  But like I said, I understand your meaning.  And the Rachni is promised to be there for you.. even though you don't see them... they're still there... and even then you get to see an ambassador for them.  It's a positive, whether it stays a positive is anyone's guess.. but in Mass Effect 2, their wanting to help is a good thing.[/quote]

That is one decision, and it still only results in a promise.


[quote]It is not self evident that killing them was any better than leaving them alive.  Alive, they've done nothing... or positive things as far as the game is concerned.  Positive validation... Renegade choices could use some of it.[/quote]

If you don't believe they are any threat, then of course you see it only as positive. You wouldn't happen to be related to a certain N. Chamberlain would you? 


[quote]From what we know of the Mass Effect Universe, the spores were used for making thralls and nothing more.  We also know that the effects of the spore drove one person to shoot himself.  It's not easy on people and that's all we seem to be hearing about thusfar.  The Thorian cannot issue any commands or anything of that sort anymore, it's dead.  So the threat as we know it is over.[/quote]

From what we know? We didn't even know the Thorian existed before Feros. Exogeni only were interested in its mind control properties. If they aren't really spores though, why are they called spores? Spores are either inert or are seeds. Seeds are more likely to have side effects such as mind control than anything inert is.


[quote]Didn't say they were... where'd you get that from?  Renegade Shepard saved people too... but I guess that doesn't matter...[/quote]

Yes it does. Renegades convincing Helena to go straight get to see that she has gone straight. Renegades who choose to kill Feros colonists rather than spare them then help the survivors get a thank you note saying that their efforts for the colony are appreciated and killing the colonists was regretable but neccessary.

You were talking though about renegades ignoring warnings. Which warnings?


[quote]Cool, but I wasn't talking about that.  I was talking about Shepard and how he viewed his relationship with the Council.[/quote]

And I pointed out that his response to reinstatement is 'do I have to make reports?' as if he doesn't want reinstatement if it means still reporting to the Council. He also is just as trusting of TIM after TIM outright lies to him. He also exclaims "OMG, Reapers!" at the drop of a hat as if everyone should believe him just because he thinks they should. In other words, Shepard has no political savvy at all.
 

[quote]I don't mind including it.  Before the choice, your squad is mostly silent though some side with the Renegade choice... afterwards, they all favor the Paragon choice... regadless of what you decide.[/quote]

Which is why I call them magpies. After the fact when they have no new information is just idiotic.

[quote]True, so nothing negative to report.  No casualties from any attempt, no more attacks by Balak... in ME2, it's all good.

On a side note, that'd be kinda funny if Balak died in the Arrival DLC and we didn't even know it, lol[/quote]

Since you didn't seem to get it the first two times, NOTHING IN TWO YEARS DOESN"T MEAN MUCH. it does not mean he isn't a threat. If he doesn't show up again it is more likely because it was a DLC.


[quote]Doesn't change the fact or preclude exclusive content from coming from it.[/quote]

It does when you seem to be expecting renegade only as some sort of compensation.

[quote]You get to see the Council you're working with/for.  You get a cameo appearance from a life that was saved that didn't need to be there.  Your squad about-faces and goes full-bore Paragon favoritism at the end of ME2 when their opinion at the time of the choice was the opposite.

Then there's the fact of:  Just because Paragon Shepard "wanted" to save the people he saved, doesn't mean he had to succeed.  Similarly, just because the Renegade feels justified in their choice, doesn't mean the game can't prove it right.  Like the series 24, a lot of bad things happened to Jack Bauer and Jack Bauer did a lot of "bad" things... but the show constantly showed that Jack Bauer was "right" and showed it with actual content.  Other methods would fail but Jack would come in and succeed.  That's positive validation.

Why the hostility toward suggesting Bioware do the same for Renegades in the Mass Effect series?  [/quote]

Seeing the Council doesn't translate into anything. You are a spectre that can't even use the spectre store. There is no difference other than getting air quoted at and being called a traitor. You (in character) don't even seem to want the status, considering turning it down if it means filing reports. Sure he says it went well after the fact and to Udina, but it changes nothing. All smoke and mirrors and politics without substance.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 27 juin 2011 - 04:20 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

They were delayed, not stopped (they are still coming at the end of ME1) and the actions in ME2 don't even delay them. Arrival can happen before the suicide mission.[/quote]

They were stopped from using the Citadel Relay.  They were delayed from arriving in systems containing organic life.  They were also stopped from entering another Relay in the Arrival DLC.  Both were stops, but the Reapers just find another way.




[quote]So what are you saying? That choices should have retroactive benefits? Situations to which they can apply haven't happened yet.[/quote]

An upside to a choice can be presented via game content.

[quote]
The main objective in BDtS is to save the colony. That is accomplished. Killing Balak vs saving the hostages is indepenant of that objective. There is also no obvious relation to the Reaper mission. If you do want to relate it to the Reaper mission, you should ignore it (and all other side missions) to stop Saran ASAP.[/quote]

If it's not in the middle of your objective then you have a new objective.... which is to diffuse that situation.





[quote]The war was against the Taliban, who were supporting Al-qaeda. Al-qaeda being a terrorist organization rather than a state made it hard to declare formal war on. Past the initial invasion, the majority of casualties have been at the hands of Taliban partisans. I can't think of any casualties that are specificly attributed to Al-qaeda. There may well be some, but they are incidental compared to the overall operation.[/quote]

They went after both factions, and the catalyst was 9/11.  It was through Bin Laden that the war in Iraq even happened... as the emotion for 9/11 was brought down on them first.  That came at a pretty substantial cost.





[quote]In two years. It took 10 to take Osama down, and that was in a much smaller area. That said, we do know that resources are needing to be allocated to the search, and that does cost resources. If Balak was dead, those resources could be going into colonies, or improving the standard of living, or additional fleet construction or something constructive. No we are not told these things. Surprise surprise we are not given comparative economic data.[/quote]

Yeah there were rumers that Bin Laden was dead a few times early on... But in any case, as far as the news is concerned... nothing is going on with Balak.





[quote]That is a blatantly obvious common sense advantage though. You seem to want some sort of artificial contrived compensation to renegades.[/quote]

I actually want a genuine upside presented for making a non-Paragon choice.  A positive outlook or tidbit from some source in the face of negative consequences.  I think that'd be nice.  And it should be natural to the narrative of course.




[quote]That is one decision, and it still only results in a promise.[/quote]

You're right, but it's not just that decision.  Think of it like getting engaged.  It's a promise between you and her... sure something can happen before the wedding (or after), but if you get engaged... that's a positive thing.





[quote]If you don't believe they are any threat, then of course you see it only as positive. You wouldn't happen to be related to a certain N. Chamberlain would you? [/quote]

Objectively speaking... no threat was ever mentioned... just positive things or nothing at all.  Exception being that some survivers that had spores in their brain haven't made a complete recovery yet (but brain injuries don't get fixed overnight).  There could be a threat there... later, sure.  But for now, nothing negative to report... nothing negative in ME2.





[quote]From what we know? We didn't even know the Thorian existed before Feros. Exogeni only were interested in its mind control properties. If they aren't really spores though, why are they called spores? Spores are either inert or are seeds. Seeds are more likely to have side effects such as mind control than anything inert is.[/quote]

I never said they weren't spores...  And sure, Shepard doesn't know everything about every creature in the galaxy... but that still hasn't lead to any negative news regarding them throughout the Mass Effect games up to this point.  Mass Effect 3 may provide a twist, but it's no negative event is present in the first 2 games.


[quote]Yes it does. Renegades convincing Helena to go straight get to see that she has gone straight. Renegades who choose to kill Feros colonists rather than spare them then help the survivors get a thank you note saying that their efforts for the colony are appreciated and killing the colonists was regretable but neccessary.

You were talking though about renegades ignoring warnings. Which warnings?[/quote]

Paragons get thanked too.  I didn't say Renegades ignored warnings, I said that Renegades also had warnings (as you would describe them).  Things like the Salarians accusing the Alliance of using "gunboat" diplomacy and the Turians leaving humanity to fend for itself while the Asari left their citadel defense responsibilities to the Turians.  Then there's also the riots and incidents going on for what's believed to be in response to the events at the Citadel (not to mention that the alliance holds the majority share of citadel forces... making for less abroad) and humanity is not in the best of positions.



[quote]And I pointed out that his response to reinstatement is 'do I have to make reports?' as if he doesn't want reinstatement if it means still reporting to the Council. He also is just as trusting of TIM after TIM outright lies to him. He also exclaims "OMG, Reapers!" at the drop of a hat as if everyone should believe him just because he thinks they should. In other words, Shepard has no political savvy at all.[/quote]I think that's one of the Renegade responses... doesn't sound like a Paragon response anyway.
 





[quote]I don't mind including it.  Before the choice, your squad is mostly silent though some side with the Renegade choice... afterwards, they all favor the Paragon choice... regadless of what you decide.[/quote]

Which is why I call them magpies. After the fact when they have no new information is just idiotic.

[quote]

Since you didn't seem to get it the first two times, NOTHING IN TWO YEARS DOESN"T MEAN MUCH. it does not mean he isn't a threat. If he doesn't show up again it is more likely because it was a DLC.[/quote]

As I've been saying, 2 years doesn't have to mean much.. the fact still exists that there's still nothing negative to report for that choice. 





[quote]It does when you seem to be expecting renegade only as some sort of compensation.[/quote]

Both Shepards have a Council, Paragon Shepard gets to see his... it'd be a similar scenario.  Exclusive content for a certain choice is exclusive content for a certain choice... it's not about what "could" happen with either choice, just what does happen... storywise it can be weaved well enough to justify the exclusive content.  Look at how they handled exclusively seeing the Council for Paragons?

[quote]
Seeing the Council doesn't translate into anything. You are a spectre that can't even use the spectre store. There is no difference other than getting air quoted at and being called a traitor. You (in character) don't even seem to want the status, considering turning it down if it means filing reports. Sure he says it went well after the fact and to Udina, but it changes nothing. All smoke and mirrors and politics without substance.
[/quote]

Shepard says you're on good terms with the Council and it's good to have them on your side (and you get to see them).  Keep in mind, that Shepard says this after the air quotes and "traitor" remarks.  That's a positive exclusive to the Paragon choice.  The Renegade choice doesn't get this luxury.

I don't even think there's a difference between the pure Renegade and Neutral outcomes when Shepard meets Anderson... no unique dialogue or proof of a seperate choice at all...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 juin 2011 - 05:10 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

They were stopped from using the Citadel Relay.  They were delayed from arriving in systems containing organic life.  They were also stopped from entering another Relay in the Arrival DLC.  Both were stops, but the Reapers just find another way.

They were still coming. Please tell me that you understand the difference between 'stopped' and 'slowed.'

An upside to a choice can be presented via game content.

You want everything up front telegraphed, the future revealed in advance. How is 'all the right answers should be blatantly obvious' any different from what you are railing against?

If it's not in the middle of your objective then you have a new objective.... which is to diffuse that situation.

So you are saying that the mission was the decision itself? Then how can either choice 'jeopardize the mission?' 

They went after both factions, and the catalyst was 9/11.  It was through Bin Laden that the war in Iraq even happened... as the emotion for 9/11 was brought down on them first.  That came at a pretty substantial cost.

Getting very off topic here but there was no link between Iraq and the Taliban or Al-qaeda. Sadam's regime opposed religious leaders and considered them a threat to the regime.

Yeah there were rumers that Bin Laden was dead a few times early on... But in any case, as far as the news is concerned... nothing is going on with Balak.

About as much is going on with Balak as was with Osama. There was a dedicated search following leads but it took 10 years for payoff, 8 years more than have passed so far in game.

I actually want a genuine upside presented for making a non-Paragon choice.  A positive outlook or tidbit from some source in the face of negative consequences.  I think that'd be nice.  And it should be natural to the narrative of course.

You mean besides Helena and Liz? Other than that, and get this dead people are dead. Saved people are saved. Victims that don't happen don't send thank yous since they don't know they have been spared. Saved people who are dead don't send thank yous since the are two dead to thank anyone.

You're right, but it's not just that decision.  Think of it like getting engaged.  It's a promise between you and her... sure something can happen before the wedding (or after), but if you get engaged... that's a positive thing.

It is closer to getting engaged to someone you have only met once before, and the engagement notice is received by telegram with no date set. Not really that much of an engagement. She could also be trying to arrange to get together to stab you in your bed after gaining your trust.

Objectively speaking... no threat was ever mentioned... just positive things or nothing at all.  Exception being that some survivers that had spores in their brain haven't made a complete recovery yet (but brain injuries don't get fixed overnight).  There could be a threat there... later, sure.  But for now, nothing negative to report... nothing negative in ME2.

In ME1 there was some mention of the effects of the spores not being completely known. In ME2, Shiala has turned green and is having muscle control problems and doesn't know why. The other colonists are having headaches and muscle control problems. That isn't 'benign.' Those developed later. Shiala was in a pod for a considerable time yet wasn't suffering those effects until sometime between ME1 and ME2. That isn't 'recovering.' If they were 'recovering' they wouldn't have felt the need to sign up for the tests.

If a blatantly obvious threat was mentioned, it wouldn't have been a choice between invasive tests and no invasve tests but between invasive tests and 'shoot them now.'

I never said they weren't spores...  And sure, Shepard doesn't know everything about every creature in the galaxy... but that still hasn't lead to any negative news regarding them throughout the Mass Effect games up to this point.  Mass Effect 3 may provide a twist, but it's no negative event is present in the first 2 games.

You said since they had mind control properties there was no threat of them being seeds. But spores are seeds. If you can't recognize the threat potential in them being seeds that isn't a failure of the writing.

Shepard says you're on good terms with the Council and it's good to have them on your side (and you get to see them).  Keep in mind, that Shepard says this after the air quotes and "traitor" remarks.  That's a positive exclusive to the Paragon choice.  The Renegade choice doesn't get this luxury.

I don't even think there's a difference between the pure Renegade and Neutral outcomes when Shepard meets Anderson... no unique dialogue or proof of a seperate choice at all...

Renegades don't care about the Council being on their side. Their reply to the dismissal of the Reapers is to dismiss the Council and do a political end run around them via Anderson and their own popularity. And so far at least, they are just as successful.

In ME3 when the Reapers do show up, vindicating everything Shepard has been saying it isn't clear where the political chips will fall. A surviving Council may eat crow and become fully cooperative, or they may act like De Gaulle in WW2, commanding only refugee forces but often acting like they are equal to the US or even Britain. 

A replacement Council may act rebellious or they might stay out of Shepard's way out of fear or cooperate out of fear, or even out of a new understanding that Shepard's threat assessment was correct after all and that he did the right thing (similar to Liz's reaction to deaths of the Feros colonists).

Until ME3, everything is just smoke, mirrors and hints of what might be. People were asking for Shepard to have an option to work with Cerberus in ME2, but I can't remember anyone calling for it to be manditory or expecting that to happen. Certainly people who saved the Council expected the Council to at least believe in Reapers now.

There were no hints of either, which means your protest that there are no blatant spell it all out for you style warnings means absolutely nothing.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
They were still coming. Please tell me that you understand the difference between 'stopped' and 'slowed.'[/quote]

They were not still coming through the Citadel Relay.  They were stopped from doing that... later, they were stopped from using the Relay in the Batarian system.  Read carefully what I said as I distinguished between the two quite clearly.





[quote]You want everything up front telegraphed, the future revealed in advance. How is 'all the right answers should be blatantly obvious' any different from what you are railing against?[/quote]

I never said I wanted 'all the right answers'... where'd you get that from?  I said some positive validation... demonstrate an upside to making a choice.  A choice could be the wrong choice (however you want to interpret that) and there can still be an upside to it.  That's the difference.

As far as "up front telegraphed" goes.  Presented in the same manner as the Paragon choice outcomes would be fine.





[quote]So you are saying that the mission was the decision itself? Then how can either choice 'jeopardize the mission?'[/quote]

An objective is an optional subset of a mission (or the mission itself when broken up into parts).  If the mission was to do something, and that thing is done... another scenario would be a new objective or mission. 





[quote]Getting very off topic here but there was no link between Iraq and the Taliban or Al-qaeda. Sadam's regime opposed religious leaders and considered them a threat to the regime.[/quote]

Yeah lets stay on topic... but the link is between Bin Laden and Iraq.  American anger and fear over 9/11 paved the way for the Iraq war.





[quote]About as much is going on with Balak as was with Osama. There was a dedicated search following leads but it took 10 years for payoff, 8 years more than have passed so far in game.[/quote]

In that case, please note that President Bush wasn't even concerned about Bin Laden anymore... and that's just 6 months after 9/11.






[quote]You mean besides Helena and Liz? Other than that, and get this dead people are dead. Saved people are saved. Victims that don't happen don't send thank yous since they don't know they have been spared. Saved people who are dead don't send thank yous since the are two dead to thank anyone.[/quote]

I've gotten that a long time ago... where does this arguement keep coming from?  No one... not Renegades... not Paragons... want "thank yous" from dead people.  Naturally that wouldn't make any sense...  Again, Positive Validation.. an upside to the choice can be presented exclusive to the Renegade decision... like they are for the Paragon choice.  That doesn't even have to involve a "thank you" of any kind... just a positive acknowledgement or outcome of the choice demonstrated in some way in the game. 





[quote]It is closer to getting engaged to someone you have only met once before, and the engagement notice is received by telegram with no date set. Not really that much of an engagement. She could also be trying to arrange to get together to stab you in your bed after gaining your trust.[/quote]

It's even closer to being told informally that you've got a job by an employer's representative.  You did a favor for the employer who gives you his express thanks and tells you he won't forget it... then later, his personal rep has come offering you work.  Nothing but a good thing.





[quote]In ME1 there was some mention of the effects of the spores not being completely known. In ME2, Shiala has turned green and is having muscle control problems and doesn't know why. The other colonists are having headaches and muscle control problems. That isn't 'benign.' Those developed later. Shiala was in a pod for a considerable time yet wasn't suffering those effects until sometime between ME1 and ME2. That isn't 'recovering.' If they were 'recovering' they wouldn't have felt the need to sign up for the tests.[/quote]

Those can happen with brain injuries...  With the Thorian dead, the spores could possibly be dying and causing reactions to the surrounding brain tissue and nerve endings.  No one knows what happens to the spores after the spore's master is dead... we could also be looking at the hosts going through a sort of withdrawl from coming off of the spores.  It was mind control after all.  All speculation at this point... the game still doesn't present anything negative to report.






[quote]If a blatantly obvious threat was mentioned, it wouldn't have been a choice between invasive tests and no invasve tests but between invasive tests and 'shoot them now.'[/quote]

That's possible... so nothing negative to report.





[quote]You said since they had mind control properties there was no threat of them being seeds. But spores are seeds. If you can't recognize the threat potential in them being seeds that isn't a failure of the writing.[/quote]

Please try to quote me from now on (I mean directly take what I say)... you've been building a habit of claiming I said things I didn't say.


[quote]
Renegades don't care about the Council being on their side. Their reply to the dismissal of the Reapers is to dismiss the Council and do a political end run around them via Anderson and their own popularity. And so far at least, they are just as successful. [/quote]

That's after the fact and even then, a Renegade always wants to give people they have beef with a piece of their mind.  If Shepard was allowed to confront the new council directly, that would've been equal content and positive validation for the choice.  Heck, if the all-human council had a more Renegade attitude, they could've come to a bickering-level of respect and understanding.... and that would've been fun to watch (and far more equal to the Paragon choice result).

[quote]In ME3 when the Reapers do show up, vindicating everything Shepard has been saying it isn't clear where the political chips will fall. A surviving Council may eat crow and become fully cooperative, or they may act like De Gaulle in WW2, commanding only refugee forces but often acting like they are equal to the US or even Britain. 

A replacement Council may act rebellious or they might stay out of Shepard's way out of fear or cooperate out of fear, or even out of a new understanding that Shepard's threat assessment was correct after all and that he did the right thing (similar to Liz's reaction to deaths of the Feros colonists).[/quote]

Always possible.

[quote]Until ME3, everything is just smoke, mirrors and hints of what might be. People were asking for Shepard to have an option to work with Cerberus in ME2, but I can't remember anyone calling for it to be manditory or expecting that to happen. Certainly people who saved the Council expected the Council to at least believe in Reapers now.

There were no hints of either, which means your protest that there are no blatant spell it all out for you style warnings means absolutely nothing.[/quote]

That goes both ways (regarding Cerberus)... and Cerberus has nothing to do with any choice you make... all Shepards have to go through that.  I'm talking strictly about outcomes to choices presented in the games thusfar.  A choice doesn't have to be finished for there to be some kind of payoff or upside to the choice.  And when payoffs happen with one choice (more positive validation, more content and cameos) and not the other (missing cameos, missing equivalent content, and generally negative validation)... it's pretty easy to see where the game's favoritism has resided thusfar.

If that changes in ME3 (and it's possible that it will)... then great... but that doesn't excuse ME1 and 2.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 28 juin 2011 - 03:06 .

[KevShep]

I dont see whats hard to understand...renegades do get rewarded. Being bad and pi**ing everybody off is fun and for the renegade that is the reward. The main questions is...are you going to sacrifice your shot at beating the reapers by having fun or are you going to do the RIGHT thing. some areas of the game its ok to be bad but others you really need to think about what your doing and WHO your really doing it for!

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

They were not still coming through the Citadel Relay.  They were stopped from doing that... later, they were stopped from using the Relay in the Batarian system.  Read carefully what I said as I distinguished between the two quite clearly.[/quote]

Forcing someone to detour is not stopping and you know it. At the end of ME1 you get the image of Harbinger and the Reaper fleet and you know they are still coming. If you are going to keep playing these semantic games and equate 'stopped from taking a shortcut' to 'stopped in forward progress' there is not much point continuing the discussion.

[quote]I never said I wanted 'all the right answers'... where'd you get that from?  I said some positive validation... demonstrate an upside to making a choice.  A choice could be the wrong choice (however you want to interpret that) and there can still be an upside to it.  That's the difference.

As far as "up front telegraphed" goes.  Presented in the same manner as the Paragon choice outcomes would be fine.[/quote]

You keep saying that if you are not warned in game of potential threats then you assume those threats don't really exist. You have dismissed deduced threat potenial based on evidence in game such as 'spores', or 'a sour note from space' or even just 'Vido is a killer' or 'Balak is a killer who just tried to wipe out an entire colony' on the basis that nothing in game tells you outright 'omg, those are threats!'

The logical conclusion is that you feel the need to be told outright, point blank that any given threat is a threat. You (appearantly) can't deduce anything on your own without the game outright telling you.

The paragon responses aren't telegraphing anything. "Thank you for saving me' is recognition of a past event, not anything regarding the future. 'You should have blown up the base' only matters if your crew's opinions actually matter. That leaves the Rachni, which is only one decision which you have already been warned could still go badly. Even if it goes well, it is just one decision, not a trend.

[quote]An objective is an optional subset of a mission (or the mission itself when broken up into parts).  If the mission was to do something, and that thing is done... another scenario would be a new objective or mission.[/quote]

And this relates to the discussion how, exactly? Your mission was to save the colony. That is done, so saving the hostages vs killing Balak isn't an 'optional subset' and your mentioning that possibility is just a red herring, a distraction from any meaningful arguement.

BDtS isn't an optional subset of stopping the Reapers either. It is an independant mission.

As such the hostage decision is independant of everything else. Does this mean that you should assume Balak isn't a threat if let go? If he hadn't pulled anything off in 2 years, does that mean he is no longer a threat and thus should the effort to catch him (and resulting resources expended) be stopped?

Whether those resources matter in stopping the Reapers or not is academic. This is an independant decision. Presumably those resources could be spent in other ways even if it is just raising the standard of living a little.

[quote]In that case, please note that President Bush wasn't even concerned about Bin Laden anymore... and that's just 6 months after 9/11.
[/quote]

So he called off the search? Oh wait, he didn't. If you want to relate that back to ME it is more like the decision not to let the public know about the Reaper threat or even outright dismissal of the Reaper threat. It didn't make the threat go away.

[quote]I've gotten that a long time ago... where does this arguement keep coming from?  No one... not Renegades... not Paragons... want "thank yous" from dead people.  Naturally that wouldn't make any sense...  Again, Positive Validation.. an upside to the choice can be presented exclusive to the Renegade decision... like they are for the Paragon choice.  That doesn't even have to involve a "thank you" of any kind... just a positive acknowledgement or outcome of the choice demonstrated in some way in the game.[/quote]

You want a gratuitous thank you from 'someone' regarding the renegade choices. There isn't anyone to thank the renegades though that isn't also there for paragons. As such, any such acknowledgements would come across as gratuitous.

[quote]It's even closer to being told informally that you've got a job by an employer's representative.  You did a favor for the employer who gives you his express thanks and tells you he won't forget it... then later, his personal rep has come offering you work.  Nothing but a good thing.[/quote]

You are ignoring the fact that the employer isn't telling you where the job will be, when you will be starting, or what the pay is. They aren't even giving you an actual job description. They are just telling you the industry (mercenary troops) but not what capacity, capability, timing, etc., and being mercenaries, their troops could defect to the enemy at any time (indoctrination).

You can spin that as 'nothing but a good thing' all you want, but that doesn't mean that is how it really is. If you cannot acknowledge threat potentials of course you will always favour paragon.

[quote]Those can happen with brain injuries...  With the Thorian dead, the spores could possibly be dying and causing reactions to the surrounding brain tissue and nerve endings.  No one knows what happens to the spores after the spore's master is dead... we could also be looking at the hosts going through a sort of withdrawl from coming off of the spores.  It was mind control after all.  All speculation at this point... the game still doesn't present anything negative to report.[/quote]

There seemed nothing at all wrong with Shiala's brain in ME1. She wasn't freed until after the Thorian was dead. The bolded sections highlight (literally) your problem here. You are equating a lack of certain knowledge with a lack of threat. That is negligent.

[quote]That's possible... so nothing negative to report.[/quote]

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

- Neville Chamberlain, July 1938

[quote]Please try to quote me from now on (I mean directly take what I say)... you've been building a habit of claiming I said things I didn't say.[/quote]

Relevant portions of our discussion:[quote]

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.


[quote]That thorian is dead. Its spores live on, hence the side effects. Spores are seeds. There is every reason to believe a new threat could arise from this. Just because that hasn't happened so far doesn't change the fact that we have been warned. Analysis is about observation and interpretation. Reality doesn't hand out text banners explaining itself.[/quote]The spores are the medium through which the mind control occurred.  Could something happen?  Possibly.  Has something happened?  No.  Most victims that suffer mental abuse aren't instantly "all better" just because their attacker is dead... they may be scarred for life... but they're still alive.

[/quote]

In saying they were the medium for mind control, you dismiss any threats relating to them being seeds and essentially say that since they were the medium for mind control that they couldn't also be seeds. You also dismiss any suggestion that the side effects might relate to them being seeds instead insisting on your interpretation that there is no threat, even though the non-invasive tests found no reason for the problems the colonists are having.

Does this mean there is an issue? No. But it does mean there might be and that it is plausable that there is. Invasive tests are undertaken all the time in RL. Biopsies, exploratory surgery, etc etc etc. They are not an unreasonable response under the circumstances.

[quote]That's after the fact and even then, a Renegade always wants to give people they have beef with a piece of their mind.  If Shepard was allowed to confront the new council directly, that would've been equal content and positive validation for the choice.  Heck, if the all-human council had a more Renegade attitude, they could've come to a bickering-level of respect and understanding.... and that would've been fun to watch (and far more equal to the Paragon choice result).[/quote]

All of this is after the fact. You are claiming that the after the fact results are all pro paragon. The Council being scared and ineffectual is them getting out of the renegades way, which is all the renegade really wants anyway.

[quote]Always possible.[/quote]

If you admit it is possible, then why do you keep going on about renegade decisions not mattering?

[quote]That goes both ways (regarding Cerberus)... and Cerberus has nothing to do with any choice you make... all Shepards have to go through that.  I'm talking strictly about outcomes to choices presented in the games thusfar.  A choice doesn't have to be finished for there to be some kind of payoff or upside to the choice.  And when payoffs happen with one choice (more positive validation, more content and cameos) and not the other (missing cameos, missing equivalent content, and generally negative validation)... it's pretty easy to see where the game's favoritism has resided thusfar.

If that changes in ME3 (and it's possible that it will)... then great... but that doesn't excuse ME1 and 2.
[/quote]

My point was that future events in game cannot be easily predicted. And you are saying that vindication in ME3 doesn't excuse a paragon choice seeming better earlier? Again, you are wanting the whole concept to change, to redefine paragon and renegade utterly.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

Forcing someone to detour is not stopping and you know it. At the end of ME1 you get the image of Harbinger and the Reaper fleet and you know they are still coming. If you are going to keep playing these semantic games and equate 'stopped from taking a shortcut' to 'stopped in forward progress' there is not much point continuing the discussion. [/quote]

In Arrival, that relay is destroyed... there is no detour for that... no alternate road that takes you through that relay... it's gone.   They can no longer go through that relay, they were stopped from doing it.  Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.  You're the one playing semantic games... if you weren't then you'd acknowledge that the Reapers were indeed stopped from being summoned by Sovereign and stopped from entering the Relay that was destroyed in the Arrival DLC.

We are done with this point.  It should be obvious to you that the Reapers aren't stopped 'for good'... and I've already said as much.

[quote]
You keep saying that if you are not warned in game of potential threats then you assume those threats don't really exist. You have dismissed deduced threat potenial based on evidence in game such as 'spores', or 'a sour note from space' or even just 'Vido is a killer' or 'Balak is a killer who just tried to wipe out an entire colony' on the basis that nothing in game tells you outright 'omg, those are threats!' [/quote]

Again, quote me directly... you really need to stop pretending I say things I really don't say.

Sour note from space?  Some Rachni were indoctrinated?  Probably... so were practically all races in the history of the entire known mass effect universe.  The Rachni aren't special as to avoid such a thing... the Reapers have always won thusfar and indoctrination is their primary weapon.  Humans will also be indoctrinated... heck, some already have been.






[quote]The logical conclusion is that you feel the need to be told outright, point blank that any given threat is a threat. You (appearantly) can't deduce anything on your own without the game outright telling you.[/quote]

The point is positive validation for choices... threats will be threats, but presentation is an entirely different thing.  If Paragons can have such things, Renegades can have them too.






[quote]The paragon responses aren't telegraphing anything. "Thank you for saving me' is recognition of a past event, not anything regarding the future. 'You should have blown up the base' only matters if your crew's opinions actually matter. That leaves the Rachni, which is only one decision which you have already been warned could still go badly. Even if it goes well, it is just one decision, not a trend.[/quote]

They showed up when they didn't have to... as evidenced by the lack of such content for the Renegade choice.  And again, the "I don't care about the special treatment or extra content" doesn't make what's in the game any less special treatment and extra content for the Paragon choices.

I'm not debating with you whether people like the extra stuff or not... just the fact that it is actually extra.






[quote]And this relates to the discussion how, exactly? Your mission was to save the colony. That is done, so saving the hostages vs killing Balak isn't an 'optional subset' and your mentioning that possibility is just a red herring, a distraction from any meaningful arguement.[/quote]

Put it together... If the mission was to save the colony, and that was accomplished... then dealing with Balak and its hostages are a new objective/mission.  It makes no difference.






[quote]BDtS isn't an optional subset of stopping the Reapers either. It is an independant mission.[/quote]

Naturally... the Reapers aren't part of any choice you make in that DLC's scenario.






[quote]As such the hostage decision is independant of everything else. Does this mean that you should assume Balak isn't a threat if let go? If he hadn't pulled anything off in 2 years, does that mean he is no longer a threat and thus should the effort to catch him (and resulting resources expended) be stopped?[/quote]

Doesn't make this any less about the results from Paragon decisions vs Renegade decisions... and the notion of Paragon favoritism displayed in the first 2 games.  And you can speculate as much as you'd like, the fact of the matter is that there's nothing negative that became of letting Balak go... just like nothing negative came of letting Fist go... just like nothing negative came of letting the Asari with the Throian go... just like nothing negative came from letting the eclipse merc (during the Thane recruitment mission) go... just like nothing negative came from letting the crazy guy in Jack's mission go...

Nothing negative to report...






[quote]Whether those resources matter in stopping the Reapers or not is academic. This is an independant decision. Presumably those resources could be spent in other ways even if it is just raising the standard of living a little.[/quote]

Each choice is in its own context and relevant to its own objective... and this discussion is still about Paragon decisions vs Renegade decisions (and the outcomes such as positive validation, cameos, and extra content).

[quote]
So he called off the search? Oh wait, he didn't. If you want to relate that back to ME it is more like the decision not to let the public know about the Reaper threat or even outright dismissal of the Reaper threat. It didn't make the threat go away.[/quote]

No, he didn't call off the search, but he didn't put much effort into finding him either.. it was not a priority and not the real reason we went to Iraq... and certainly not why Bush wanted to stay there indefinitely.  But because of 9/11 and Bin Laden, the Iraq war became feasable and possible.  And lives were lost because of it... that's a negatve outcome without the story being completed... of which is the final end of Bin Laden.






[quote]You want a gratuitous thank you from 'someone' regarding the renegade choices. There isn't anyone to thank the renegades though that isn't also there for paragons. As such, any such acknowledgements would come across as gratuitous.[/quote]

Read my last sentence that you quoted.... that's why quoting me directly is important to our conversation... you can now see clearly where you're veering off.  This debate would be over a lot faster if you truly read what it is I say.






[quote]You are ignoring the fact that the employer isn't telling you where the job will be, when you will be starting, or what the pay is. They aren't even giving you an actual job description. They are just telling you the industry (mercenary troops) but not what capacity, capability, timing, etc., and being mercenaries, their troops could defect to the enemy at any time (indoctrination).[/quote]

You've seen the employer's handywork before and met with the boss personally.  You also know the pay is high enough to be considered beneficial as long as they make good on it.  You usually go to job orientation to hear the details... and that always happens after you get hired.






[quote]You can spin that as 'nothing but a good thing' all you want, but that doesn't mean that is how it really is. If you cannot acknowledge threat potentials of course you will always favour paragon.[/quote]

There's no negative spin present in the game's portrayal of the event.  You can imagine a threat with everything that happens... but that doesn't mean the actual game presented it as such... or will have an outcome that validates it.  The Rachni wants vengeance against the Reapers for what happened to their ancestors and are willing to ally with you... that's positive.

The hypothetical negative not presented by the game?  What if it backfires or they aren't able to help?  Indoctrination happens to practically every species... so why would the Rachni be excluded?  All ally races likely have some indoctrination going on with them.... that doesn't make a race offering their help negative... really, it doesn't.

Otherwise, the premise of Mass Effect 3 would be really worrisome to you.  What if there is indoctrination?  There will be..no real surprise.  If they don't help "at all"... then they tricked you... but that's not what's presented in the first 2 games.






[quote]There seemed nothing at all wrong with Shiala's brain in ME1. She wasn't freed until after the Thorian was dead. The bolded sections highlight (literally) your problem here. You are equating a lack of certain knowledge with a lack of threat. That is negligent. [/quote]

Negligent on Bioware's behalf perhaps (if they meant to present it as a threat)... otherwise, nothing negative to report.  If there's nothing negative there, there's nothing negative you can talk about.. you can only speculate.  Renegade choices can point out actual presented negatives with their choices compared to Paragon choices... (regardless of if they can manage them or not).

[quote]"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

- Neville Chamberlain, July 1938[/quote]

Doesn't affect what's presented in the first 2 games.  Lets try to stay on topic.

[quote]In saying they were the medium for mind control, you dismiss any threats relating to them being seeds and essentially say that since they were the medium for mind control that they couldn't also be seeds. You also dismiss any suggestion that the side effects might relate to them being seeds instead insisting on your interpretation that there is no threat, even though the non-invasive tests found no reason for the problems the colonists are having.

Does this mean there is an issue? No. But it does mean there might be and that it is plausable that there is. Invasive tests are undertaken all the time in RL. Biopsies, exploratory surgery, etc etc etc. They are not an unreasonable response under the circumstances.[/quote]

Thank you.  There is no issue presented in Mass Effect 2.  Nothing negative to report.  That's all I was saying and that's the only point I was making.

I understand that Bioware could write a twist in there for Mass Effect 3 regarding literally anything... but they've done nothing with it in the first 2 games.  Besides, I gave more options regarding why the survivors may be suffering sideffects for having seeds in their brains (like decaying)...  The Thorian thought humans were good to "dig and decompose"... always possible that the seeds decay the brain over time... leading to neuro-related damage.  Or it could be withdrawl symptoms.. no one suffers withdrawl immediately after coming off of a substance.  All speculation... nothing negative to report.






[quote]All of this is after the fact. You are claiming that the after the fact results are all pro paragon. The Council being scared and ineffectual is them getting out of the renegades way, which is all the renegade really wants anyway.[/quote]
 
The Council is present before the fact... when they didn't have to be.  They're not there for the Renegade choice... when they could've been without compromising anything about the Renegade. 






[quote]If you admit it is possible, then why do you keep going on about renegade decisions not mattering?[/quote]

Even more proof that you need to use quotes when you talk about something I say... I never said anything about Renegade choices "not mattering" (outside of wanting to get more cameos, content, and positive validation)  This is about "favoritism" and "content" not "relevance."

If you are referring to the the part parenthesized, then none of that is in Mass Effect 1 or 2... which is what we're talking about... only the games we can see and know about for certain.






[quote]My point was that future events in game cannot be easily predicted. And you are saying that vindication in ME3 doesn't excuse a paragon choice seeming better earlier? Again, you are wanting the whole concept to change, to redefine paragon and renegade utterly.[/quote]

I understand your point... my point is that the future does not excuse the first 2 games.  We can speculate Mass Effect 3 all day long... it doesn't change the fact that Mass Effect 1 and 2 followed a trend of Paragon favoritism (all of those moments where the Paragon choice presented positive in-game results over the Renegade one) ... and it's still not clear that the trend will end with ME2... but it's more likely now.

And the concept of Paragon and Renegade wouldn't change... unless you feel that the Paragon choice is supposed to be the favored choice.  The Paragon choice presents more unique content, more unique characters, and more positive validation for choices made by the game itself.  The Renegade choice doesn't have to be any less edgy or have any less of an attitude for the game to actually show an upside to making those choices.  They could've done it, they didn't do it... they may do it in Mass Effect 3... and I hope they do.  You can't really say a choice is hard if you know that the choices will end up the way they have been.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 28 juin 2011 - 11:23 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

KevShep wrote...

I dont see whats hard to understand...renegades do get rewarded. Being bad and pi**ing everybody off is fun and for the renegade that is the reward. The main questions is...are you going to sacrifice your shot at beating the reapers by having fun or are you going to do the RIGHT thing. some areas of the game its ok to be bad but others you really need to think about what your doing and WHO your really doing it for!

Paragon and Renegade ultimately aren't meant to be "RIGHT" and "Wrong"... because you seem to think they are... Bioware has failed you in this regard.  But they do plan to fix that... if Casey's words are any indication.... and that's good.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 28 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

In Arrival, that relay is destroyed... there is no detour for that... no alternate road that takes you through that relay... it's gone.   They can no longer go through that relay, they were stopped from doing it.  Please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.  You're the one playing semantic games... if you weren't then you'd acknowledge that the Reapers were indeed stopped from being summoned by Sovereign and stopped from entering the Relay that was destroyed in the Arrival DLC.

We are done with this point.  It should be obvious to you that the Reapers aren't stopped 'for good'... and I've already said as much.[/quote]

If there is no detour for that, how do they still arrive in ME3? Are you now going to invent some new definition of detour? "Detour" means 'taking an alternate route' which is exactly what the Reapers have had to do.

[quote]Again, quote me directly... you really need to stop pretending I say things I really don't say.

Sour note from space?  Some Rachni were indoctrinated?  Probably... so were practically all races in the history of the entire known mass effect universe.  The Rachni aren't special as to avoid such a thing... the Reapers have always won thusfar and indoctrination is their primary weapon.  Humans will also be indoctrinated... heck, some already have been.[/quote]

There is no evidence of any Rachni not answering that call. The onus is on you to prove there were, not on me. The sour note happened, then the Rachni went to all out war with no quarter given or asked. It may be that didn't mean indoctrination at all, but if it did mean indoctrination it seemed pretty much complete. The Queen was only an exception because she was still just an egg.

[quote]The point is positive validation for choices... threats will be threats, but presentation is an entirely different thing.  If Paragons can have such things, Renegades can have them too.[/quote]

And yet you haven't shown any situations where paragons wouldn't also get vindication from the same sources in addition to what they already get.

[quote]They showed up when they didn't have to... as evidenced by the lack of such content for the Renegade choice.  And again, the "I don't care about the special treatment or extra content" doesn't make what's in the game any less special treatment and extra content for the Paragon choices.

I'm not debating with you whether people like the extra stuff or not... just the fact that it is actually extra.[/quote]

If they were trying to set the Council races up, if would help them tremendously if they weren't fired upon on sight. If they get indoctrinated, then they are unintentionally setting the Council up. There is a reason why they might want to meet and another why such a meeting might mean saving them was a bad choice regardless.

[quote]Put it together... If the mission was to save the colony, and that was accomplished... then dealing with Balak and its hostages are a new objective/mission.  It makes no difference.[/quote]

Then how can either resolution 'jeopardize the mission??' I am taking your response as your having had no point and are now just sayin things for the sake of sounding like you do.

[quote]Doesn't make this any less about the results from Paragon decisions vs Renegade decisions... and the notion of Paragon favoritism displayed in the first 2 games.  And you can speculate as much as you'd like, the fact of the matter is that there's nothing negative that became of letting Balak go... just like nothing negative came of letting Fist go... just like nothing negative came of letting the Asari with the Throian go... just like nothing negative came from letting the eclipse merc (during the Thane recruitment mission) go... just like nothing negative came from letting the crazy guy in Jack's mission go...

Nothing negative to report...[/quote]

I am beginning to think that you wouldn't consider someone pointing a gun at you 'negative' until they had actually shot you to death. Do you have no concept of threat assessment at all?

[quote]Each choice is in its own context and relevant to its own objective... and this discussion is still about Paragon decisions vs Renegade decisions (and the outcomes such as positive validation, cameos, and extra content).[/quote]

Then if you don't consider Vido or Balak threats unless you are hit over the head with a reports of a subsequent crimes, surprise surprise you will always find the paragon choice has better results.

[quote]
No, he didn't call off the search, but he didn't put much effort into finding him either.. it was not a priority and not the real reason we went to Iraq... and certainly not why Bush wanted to stay there indefinitely.  But because of 9/11 and Bin Laden, the Iraq war became feasable and possible.  And lives were lost because of it... that's a negatve outcome without the story being completed... which is the final end of Bin Laden.[/quote]

Funny, I don't remember pulling out of Afghanistan just because the US decided to start a new war in Iraq. You really are just blathering now. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Bin Laden other than Osama being used as part of the excuse.

[quote]Read my last sentence that you quoted.... that's why quoting me directly is important to our conversation... you can now see clearly where you're veering off.  This debate would be over a lot faster if you truly read what it is I say.[/quote]

You keep trying to veer the discussion back to Iraq or your own definition of 'detour' or even your own definition of 'negative' (and no I am not going to provide quotes other than what I am responding to in this post. That should be plenty).

[quote]You've seen the employer's handywork before and met with the boss personally.  You also know the pay is high enough to be considered beneficial as long as they make good on it.  You usually go to job orientation to hear the details... and that always happens after you get hired.[/quote]

The only handywork we have seen before has been what we know of the Rachni war, and the meeting with the boss was at gunpoint. How in blazes are you saying we know the pay? Please enlighten us as to how many ships if any the Rachni are offering? What level of tech? What level of production if any?

And what kind of job interviews do you go on where you don't learn at least the general nature of the job before being hired?

[quote]There's no negative spin present in the game's portrayal of the event.  You can imagine a threat with everything that happens... but that doesn't mean the actual game presented it as such... or will have an outcome that validates it.  The Rachni wants vengeance against the Reapers for what happened to their ancestors and are willing to ally with you... that's positive.

The hypothetical negative not presented by the game?  What if it backfires or they aren't able to help?  Indoctrination happens to practically every species... so why would the Rachni be excluded?  All ally races likely have some indoctrination going on with them.... that doesn't make a race offering their help negative... really, it doesn't.

Otherwise, the premise of Mass Effect 3 would be really worrisome to you.  What if there is indoctrination?  There will be..no real surprise.  If they don't help "at all"... then they tricked you... but that's not what's presented in the first 2 games.[/quote]

So the Rachni war was imaginary? Spores in the Feros survivors are imaginary? You appearantly don't even believe the Reapers really are still coming since you insist that they are 'stopped.' You have some sort of report saying that Vido and Balak have retired?

[quote]Negligent on Bioware's behalf perhaps (if they meant to present it as a threat)... otherwise, nothing negative to report.  If there's nothing negative there, there's nothing negative you can talk about.. you can only speculate.  Renegade choices can point out actual presented problems with their choices (regardless of if they can manage them or not).[/quote]

Ahhhhhh, so if you fail to predict any given thing, that is purely Bioware's fault because it is impossible for you to actually reason anything that isn't outright told you. Got it.

[quote][quote]"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

- Neville Chamberlain, July 1938[/quote]

Doesn't affect what's presented in the first 2 games.  Lets try to stay on topic.[/quote]

I am not bothering with the rest of your post. If you can't understand how that quote relates to the topic there is no point continuing this discussion.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
If there is no detour for that, how do they still arrive in ME3? Are you now going to invent some new definition of detour? "Detour" means 'taking an alternate route' which is exactly what the Reapers have had to do.[/quote]

There's no other route that leads to traveling through a destroyed relay.  They do not arrive through a destroyed relay in Mass Effect 3.

[quote]
There is no evidence of any Rachni not answering that call. The onus is on you to prove there were, not on me. The sour note happened, then the Rachni went to all out war with no quarter given or asked. It may be that didn't mean indoctrination at all, but if it did mean indoctrination it seemed pretty much complete. The Queen was only an exception because she was still just an egg.[/quote]

According to the game, it's not so much of a call, but more like they were forced to do things against their will (Indoctrination is what's suggested) by who they believe to be the Reapers.  The Rachni Queen wants vengeance... and she's vowed to team up with you... that's all we know.  A positive turn of events... nothing negative to report.

Indoctrination is something that has thusfar affected all races that we've seen encounter it outside of your squad...  the Rachni would be no exception.





[quote]And yet you haven't shown any situations where paragons wouldn't also get vindication from the same sources in addition to what they already get.[/quote]

As the game has already proven... someone being saved is not excuse enough for them to show up.  The choice itself could be the reason you see someone unique... like it is for Paragon choices.





[quote]If they were trying to set the Council races up, if would help them tremendously if they weren't fired upon on sight. If they get indoctrinated, then they are unintentionally setting the Council up. There is a reason why they might want to meet and another why such a meeting might mean saving them was a bad choice regardless.[/quote]

Mind rephrasing this?  Who's "they" that you're supposing would try to set the Council races up?




[quote]Then how can either resolution 'jeopardize the mission??' I am taking your response as your having had no point and are now just sayin things for the sake of sounding like you do.[/quote]

You're taking your own response as having no point (and I can't really argue with that)... you really do need to quote me directly as you consistently forget what I say and come up with things of your own.  This debate would be over a lot faster if you stuck to what I actually say when developing your responses.

[quote]
I am beginning to think that you wouldn't consider someone pointing a gun at you 'negative' until they had actually shot you to death. Do you have no concept of threat assessment at all?[/quote]

Assuming you read atleast what I wrote in bold for this one... across the first 2 games you have hypothetical threats... If any of those characters a Paragon choice let go resulted in them later 'pointing a gun at you, ' in Shepard's face (or anybody's face) during the first 2 games, that would definitely be negative.

No such thing happens.  Nothing negative to report.  All that's there is speculation... if Mass Effect 3 continues the trend of the first 2 games, they'll do nothing... and there will be nothing negative to letting them go.

But before you start going on about Mass Effect 3... remember, we're only talking about what we see and know... which are the first 2 games only.





[quote]Then if you don't consider Vido or Balak threats unless you are hit over the head with a reports of a subsequent crimes, surprise surprise you will always find the paragon choice has better results.[/quote]

Vido, Balak, Fist, Asari that was w/the Thorian, Rachni Queen, Zaeed, and every other "dangerous" element that was let go.  Nothing negative happens with them... ie, the choice had nothing negative to report.  If something negative happens in ME3, it's because Bioware wrote it in as such... it doesn't mean they will and certainly doesn't mean they have to.

So far they've either been no new news or allies... nothing negative.  That's positive... as simple as that.

[quote]
Funny, I don't remember pulling out of Afghanistan just because the US decided to start a new war in Iraq. You really are just blathering now. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Bin Laden other than Osama being used as part of the excuse.[/quote]

Your last sentence?  That information is basically the same thing I told you earlier... that's why they're connected.  Blathering?  Apparently not... I'll quote myself to refresh your memory:

[quote]
MrGogeta34  wrote...

-and the catalyst was 9/11.  It was through Bin Laden that the war in Iraq even happened... as the emotion for 9/11 was brought down on them first.  That came at a pretty substantial cost.[/quote]

Lets move on.








[quote]You keep trying to veer the discussion back to Iraq or your own definition of 'detour' or even your own definition of 'negative' (and no I am not going to provide quotes other than what I am responding to in this post. That should be plenty).[/quote]

Also, be sure to use what you quote...  I'm using the same definition of 'detour' as the dictionary uses. 

Ex)  If you're supposed to drive a certain car... and that car gets destroyed by another... that person stopped you from using that car.  This shouldn't be hard.  No 'detour' is going to bring that car back... just like no change in the Reaper's physical direction is going to allow them to travel through the Citadel relay via Sovereign's control.





[quote]The only handywork we have seen before has been what we know of the Rachni war, and the meeting with the boss was at gunpoint. How in blazes are you saying we know the pay? Please enlighten us as to how many ships if any the Rachni are offering? What level of tech? What level of production if any?[/quote]
 
The Rachni war proved that the "pay" was good enough to rapidly breed Krogan to launch a counter-offensive.  We also know they are fast breeders and as an ally... is better than none as long as they remain that way.  Again, details are discovered at orientation... after being hired.





[quote]And what kind of job interviews do you go on where you don't learn at least the general nature of the job before being hired?[/quote]

You have the general nature of the Rachni.. .you fought them. 

[quote]
So the Rachni war was imaginary? Spores in the Feros survivors are imaginary? You appearantly don't even believe the Reapers really are still coming since you insist that they are 'stopped.' You have some sort of report saying that Vido and Balak have retired?[/quote]

The Rachni war was real and explained.  The Spores are also very real and identified.  And for who knows how many times... read what I actually say and stop arguing for the sake of it... I'll put the important parts in bold for you:

[quote] MrGogeta34 wrote...
They were stopped from using the Citadel Relay.  They were delayed from arriving in systems containing organic life.  They were also stopped from entering another Relay in the Arrival DLC.  Both were stops, but the Reapers just find another way.[/quote]

Read that (all of it)... remember that... and please cut down on the talk points by bringing imaginary arguements up again.  I'd really appreciate it.






[quote]Ahhhhhh, so if you fail to predict any given thing, that is purely Bioware's fault because it is impossible for you to actually reason anything that isn't outright told you. Got it.[/quote]

Apparently not.  The issue again is choices and their outcomes when comparing the Paragon choice to the Renegade choice... specifically Paragon favoritism.  What the actual game demonstrates favor to via more positive validation, additional content (and exclusive content), etc..






[quote]I am not bothering with the rest of your post. If you can't understand how that quote relates to the topic there is no point continuing this discussion.[/quote]

I understand how the post relates to our discussion.. but it does not relate to the topic... the topic is choices and their outcomes when comparing the Paragon choice to the Renegade choice... specifically Paragon favoritism.  What the actual game demonstrates favor to via more positive validation, additional content (and exclusive content), etc..

If you skim through this, atleast read this part:

The Paragon choice has yielded more positive validation by the game, extra content than Renegade choices, no negative news for the Paragon decisions over the Renegade choices, unique and original characters for the Paragon choice, and npc favoritism by the characters (even if they sided with the Renegade option before the choice was made).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 juin 2011 - 02:42 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

There's no other route that leads to traveling through a destroyed relay.  They do not arrive through a destroyed relay in Mass Effect 3.[/quote]

So it isn't the Reapers attacking in the ME3 trailers? Does anyone besides you know this? They obviously found a an alternate route aka .... a detour. The alternate route isn't through the Citadel or through the alpha relay but that doesn't make it any less a detour.

[quote]According to the game, it's not so much of a call, but more like they were forced to do things against their will (Indoctrination is what's suggested) by who they believe to be the Reapers.  The Rachni Queen wants vengeance... and she's vowed to team up with you... that's all we know.  A positive turn of events... nothing negative to report.

Indoctrination is something that has thusfar affected all races that we've seen encounter it outside of your squad...  the Rachni would be no exception.[/quote]

According to the game there was a sour note from space and they immediately went to war. That is all the 'according to game there is. The risk of that repeating still exists. That is 'something negative to report.' The fact that it hasn't repeated yet doesn't mean it can't or won't. Hence 'risk.'

[quote]As the game has already proven... someone being saved is not excuse enough for them to show up.  The choice itself could be the reason you see someone unique... like it is for Paragon choices.[/quote]

When has someone unique shown up who isn't part of a group who was saved? You keep saying 'things are proven' but every time the proof is disputed you either hedge with something like refusing to accept the concept of a 'detour.'

[quote]Mind rephrasing this?  Who's "they" that you're supposing would try to set the Council races up?[/quote]

If the Rachni were planning on a second Rachni war, they would want to be able to get their ships into advantageous positions. That is a lot easier if they are seen as friendly rather than shot on sight on the basis of being Rachni (which also may happen anyway since as far as we know Shepard hasn't told anyone of the Queen's promise, or if anyone believes him even if he has told them).

The start of Battlestar Galactica is a textbook example. The fleet of battlestars meets with the Cylons to sign a treaty, and the Cylons open up on them, taking out all but the Galactica (which is on patrol elsewhere at the time) and proceed to nuke the colonies.

Again this is all risk assessment. There is still risk. Thus there is still something negative to report.

[quote]You're taking your own response as having no point (and I can't really argue with that)... you really do need to quote me directly as you consistently forget what I say and come up with things of your own.  This debate would be over a lot faster if you stuck to what I actually say when developing your responses.[/quote]

If you can't keep track of a thread I am not going to do so for you.

[quote]Assuming you read atleast what I wrote in bold for this one... across the first 2 games you have hypothetical threats... If any of those characters a Paragon choice let go resulted in them later 'pointing a gun at you, ' in Shepard's face (or anybody's face) during the first 2 games, that would definitely be negative.

No such thing happens.  Nothing negative to report.  All that's there is speculation... if Mass Effect 3 continues the trend of the first 2 games, they'll do nothing... and there will be nothing negative to letting them go.

But before you start going on about Mass Effect 3... remember, we're only talking about what we see and know... which are the first 2 games only.[/quote]

There are all sorts of 'guns' pointed at you. You seem to only recognize them as dangerous when someone in game blatently points them out to you. You can't even understand a basic metaphor equating guns to threats generally.


[quote][quote]Then if you don't consider Vido or Balak threats unless you are hit over the head with a reports of a subsequent crimes, surprise surprise you will always find the paragon choice has better results.[/quote]Vido, Balak, Fist, Asari that was w/the Thorian, Rachni Queen, Zaeed, and every other "dangerous" element that was let go.  Nothing negative happens with them... ie, the choice had nothing negative to report.  If something negative happens in ME3, it's because Bioware wrote it in as such... it doesn't mean they will and certainly doesn't mean they have to.

So far they've either been no new news or allies... nothing negative.  That's positive... as simple as that.[/quote]

Re-read the bolded part of my prior comment. Again, you assess any risk you are not blatently told about as equal to nil.

[quote][quote]
Funny, I don't remember pulling out of Afghanistan just because the US decided to start a new war in Iraq. You really are just blathering now. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Bin Laden other than Osama being used as part of the excuse.[/quote]

Your last sentence?  That information is basically the same thing I told you earlier... that's why they're connected.  Blathering?  Apparently not... I'll quote myself to refresh your memory:[/quote]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the search for Bin Laden, which is what we were actually discussing. Your defence of derailing the discussion into a discussion of the Iraq war is to repeat that your mentioning the Iraq war was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[quote]Also, be sure to use what you quote...  I'm using the same definition of 'detour' as the dictionary uses. 

Ex)  If you're supposed to drive a certain car... and that car gets destroyed by another... that person stopped you from using that car.  This shouldn't be hard.  No 'detour' is going to bring that car back... just like no change in the Reaper's physical direction is going to allow them to travel through the Citadel relay via Sovereign's control.[/quote]

Neither the Citadel nor the Alpha Relay equate to a car. They are transportation routes not vehicles. If a highway is under construction, you have to detour, to take other routes.

[quote]The Rachni war proved that the "pay" was good enough to rapidly breed Krogan to launch a counter-offensive.  We also know they are fast breeders and as an ally... is better than none as long as they remain that way.  Again, details are discovered at orientation... after being hired.[/quote]

Only if they really end up on our side this time. That hasn't happened yet and they could still end up fighting us (either by indoctrination, Rachni ploy or simple mistrust on the part of the Council races treating them as hostile regardless of their intentions). If potential pay equals actual pay then potential costs equal actual costs. Case in point, the Feros survivors signed a contract that they thought was a good deal but it turned out there were aspects of the contract that made them regret signing.

[quote]You have the general nature of the Rachni.. .you fought them.[/quote]

Which actually tells relatively little. It doesn't tell us the Rachni's resistance to indoctrination or their true intentions or what the level and nature of any commitment will be.

snipping a bunch in here that is just a repeat of things said above.

[quote]Apparently not.  The issue again is choices and their outcomes when comparing the Paragon choice to the Renegade choice... specifically Paragon favoritism.  What the actual game demonstrates favor to via more positive validation, additional content (and exclusive content), etc..[/quote]

It is only better because you are defining it as such, and you are refusing to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you on the basis that you have 'proven' you are right. You have only done so by setting your own definitions.

[QUOTE]I understand how the post relates to our discussion.. but it does not relate to the topic... the topic is choices and their outcomes when comparing the Paragon choice to the Renegade choice... specifically Paragon favoritism.  What the actual game demonstrates favor to via more positive validation, additional content (and exclusive content), etc..

If you skim through this, atleast read this part:

The Paragon choice has yielded more positive validation by the game, extra content than Renegade choices, no negative news for the Paragon decisions over the Renegade choices, unique and original characters for the Paragon choice, and npc favoritism by the characters (even if they sided with the Renegade option before the choice was made).[/quote]

You are dismissing any concept of assessed threats being negative. That is precisely equivalent to saying that it is an overreaction to be be preparing for war because the Germans are invading Czechoslovakia to annex it by force after already having united with Austria.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

--Whoops, Double Post--

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 juin 2011 - 05:16 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

So it isn't the Reapers attacking in the ME3 trailers? Does anyone besides you know this? They obviously found a an alternate route aka .... a detour. The alternate route isn't through the Citadel or through the alpha relay but that doesn't make it any less a detour. [/quote]

Read everything I said there...  They weren't stopped from entering areas populated with organic life... but they were stopped from using the Citadel relay and the Arrival DLC relay.

Read it all, we should be done with this.

[quote]
According to the game there was a sour note from space and they immediately went to war. That is all the 'according to game there is. The risk of that repeating still exists. That is 'something negative to report.' The fact that it hasn't repeated yet doesn't mean it can't or won't. Hence 'risk.'[/quote]

You may want to quote the actual game... there's more to it than that.  Listen especially to the Asari representative as she explains that the Rachni were seemingly forced against their will (and indoctrination is suggested).  The risk of indoctrination is not negative unless you consider all of your allies negative due to a risk of indoctrination.  The Rachni Queen wants revenge for what happened.  Regardless, they are not portrayed as such... nothing negative to report.

I can spoil some of the surprise already, all kinds of species are indoctrinated in Mass Effect 3... that doesn't mean those of the same species still can't be allies... as made obvious by the premise of the game.






[quote]When has someone unique shown up who isn't part of a group who was saved? You keep saying 'things are proven' but every time the proof is disputed you either hedge with something like refusing to accept the concept of a 'detour.'[/quote]

Assuming you mean saved by Shepard, the Asari representative for the Rachni is a unique character you can talk with and not someone you personally saved.  Proof enough?  Look it up.

If you mean in general... Shepard saved the galaxy (albiet temporarily) by defeating and stopping Sovereign... which isn't the point.

[quote]If the Rachni were planning on a second Rachni war, they would want to be able to get their ships into advantageous positions. That is a lot easier if they are seen as friendly rather than shot on sight on the basis of being Rachni (which also may happen anyway since as far as we know Shepard hasn't told anyone of the Queen's promise, or if anyone believes him even if he has told them).

The start of Battlestar Galactica is a textbook example. The fleet of battlestars meets with the Cylons to sign a treaty, and the Cylons open up on them, taking out all but the Galactica (which is on patrol elsewhere at the time) and proceed to nuke the colonies. [/quote]

More speculation and still nothing negative presented from the actual game.







[quote]Again this is all risk assessment. There is still risk. Thus there is still something negative to report.[/quote]

It's all speculation.  I'm talking about what's actually there.  There's a "risk" that the people that a Renegade killed gave rise to someone equally or even more threatening... so that cancels your 'risk assassment' as the Renegade choice can result in a fabricated assessment just as negative or even more negative because neither speculative thought has been proven by the first 2 games.

Someone holding a baby could drop the baby... there's always risk with holding something fragile... the fact that it doesn't happen means there's nothing negative to report... even if it happens later, there's nothing negative to report now that's actually been done.






[quote]If you can't keep track of a thread I am not going to do so for you. [/quote]

Again, I never mentioned anything about whether or not I can 'keep track of a thread'...  You've got to stop fabricating and back things up by facts if you want to have a real arguement.  I'm just going to keep telling you this as you keep doing it.

[quote]
There are all sorts of 'guns' pointed at you. You seem to only recognize them as dangerous when someone in game blatently points them out to you. You can't even understand a basic metaphor equating guns to threats generally.[/quote]

The game has to declare it via content for it to be true to the game... otherwise you're just imagining things.  That's like trying to argue a game's canon story points with fan fiction.

[quote]
Re-read the bolded part of my prior comment. Again, you assess any risk you are not blatently told about as equal to nil.[/quote]

Compared to the Renegade choice equivalent of such risk?  There's just as much evidence to suggest that there's just as much risk (if not more)... which brings us back to what's actually presented in the game... which is nothing negative to report.

Something "could be" negative... but that's not the same as actually being negative.  We could speculate negatives all day long, but the game does not present them as such.






[quote]Which has absolutely nothing to do with the search for Bin Laden, which is what we were actually discussing. Your defence of derailing the discussion into a discussion of the Iraq war is to repeat that your mentioning the Iraq war was completely irrelevant to the discussion. [/quote]

Incorrect, the discussion started with 9/11.  I brought up Bin Laden because 9/11 was a negative outcome for not stopping him sooner.  You countered by saying there was no equivalent prelude to stopping Bin Laden (like Balak has).  I responded by saying even then Bin Laden and 9/11 was a catalyst for the Iraq War and missions in afghanistan which resulted in considerable loss of life.

You'd have known that if you used quotes... really, use them to back a claim you make... you should be a lot more accurate for it.

[quote]
[/b]Neither the Citadel nor the Alpha Relay equate to a car. They are transportation routes not vehicles. If a highway is under construction, you have to detour, to take other routes. [/quote]

Relays are strange beasts... they're things you "use."  If you're stopped from using it, you're stopped from using it.  And a destroyed highway is just as good of an example.  If you were going to take a certain highway... and that highway gets destroyed... then you were stopped from going on that highway... can't use what isn't there anymore.

If there's a detour, road block, etc... they stop you from going through the place that they turn you away from.  Why is this still being argued?






[quote]Only if they really end up on our side this time. That hasn't happened yet and they could still end up fighting us (either by indoctrination, Rachni ploy or simple mistrust on the part of the Council races treating them as hostile regardless of their intentions). If potential pay equals actual pay then potential costs equal actual costs. Case in point, the Feros survivors signed a contract that they thought was a good deal but it turned out there were aspects of the contract that made them regret signing.[/quote]

Coolness, so you do acknowledge it's a positive thing as long as they really do it.  Well, considering that's all the game tells you... nothing negative to report.  You hear their motivation for helping you and their intention in helping you... and that they've been heroic and respected by atleast that Asari during this time.

[quote]Which actually tells relatively little. It doesn't tell us the Rachni's resistance to indoctrination or their true intentions or what the level and nature of any commitment will be.

snipping a bunch in here that is just a repeat of things said above.[/quote]

You've seen some of their attacks and physicality/battle prowess... and their wish seems to be helping you fight the Reapers.  That's pretty good general information.  We don't know anyone's resistence level to indoctrination... so far indoctrination has always won... regardless of species.  So I don't see how that means anything past speculation you could apply to any other race that ever encountered Reaper indoctrination.






[quote]It is only better because you are defining it as such, and you are refusing to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you on the basis that you have 'proven' you are right. You have only done so by setting your own definitions.[/quote]

Incorrect, again please stop fabricating so many things.  Show me where I'm setting my own definitions... I've only been using the definitions those words already have... going as far as to post direct definitions to some of them to prove the point.

[QUOTE]
You are dismissing any concept of assessed threats being negative. That is precisely equivalent to saying that it is an overreaction to be be preparing for war because the Germans are invading Czechoslovakia to annex it by force after already having united with Austria.[/quote]

Preparation is one thing (that's an action)... speculation is another...  We either talk about the game, or we speculate wild negatives that "could happen" all the way across the spectrum... in which case... the Renegades would have just as much (if not more) threat assessments which cancels the Paragon equivalent out and still leaves the Paragon choices with more positive validation by the game, extra content than Renegade choices, no negative news for the Paragon decisions over the Renegade choices, unique and original characters for the Paragon choice, and npc favoritism by the characters (even if they sided with the Renegade option before the choice was made).[/quote]

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 juin 2011 - 05:36 .

[Moiaussi]

You are weighting a second hand essentially recorded message over the original conversation with the Queen in person. She was a ruddy egg at the time. Where has she suddenly gotten any better information regarding the war from and why would she mention that via a message that is essentially a post hypnotic suggestion?

We are done here though. I am not going to go back through all your posts to try to prove to you things you have said. You change contexts whenever they are inconvenient, reinvent definitions when convenient and then when proved wrong you pretend that is what you meant all along, again ignoring original context.

Threat assessment is all about speculation. If you know the future it isn't risk, it is certainty. You either don't understand the basic concepts involved, or more likely you do and are just feigning ignorance to troll.

Either way, we are done here.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

You are weighting a second hand essentially recorded message over the original conversation with the Queen in person. She was a ruddy egg at the time. Where has she suddenly gotten any better information regarding the war from and why would she mention that via a message that is essentially a post hypnotic suggestion?

We are done here though. I am not going to go back through all your posts to try to prove to you things you have said. You change contexts whenever they are inconvenient, reinvent definitions when convenient and then when proved wrong you pretend that is what you meant all along, again ignoring original context.

Threat assessment is all about speculation. If you know the future it isn't risk, it is certainty. You either don't understand the basic concepts involved, or more likely you do and are just feigning ignorance to troll.

Either way, we are done here.

The Queen's message is the Queen's message.  I weigh all facts presented by the game... I'm not cherry-picking them.  She provides more information about the war and about the Rachni themselves.

You don't have to go back to try to prove that I said what you think I said.. I did go back to look and know I didn't say some of the things you accused me of saying.  Sometimes, you claimed I said the exact opposite of what you were even responding to...

Again, I've never reinvented any definitions... I've even gone as far as to post definitions in this forum (and they are not made up by me... they are their actual meanings).  Just because you were proven wrong doesn't mean I've 'changed my story' or 'made something up.'  My posts are here for you to prove your case with... should you ever feel the urge... a strange thing for someone who changes his story to do...

If you read my last post you'd know why your hypothetical threat assessments cannot counter the hard facts presented by the game... because such threat assessments can be done for the Renegade side as well... it's that simple... so they effectively cancel each other out and you're still left with  Paragon choices with more positive validation by the game, extra content than Renegade choices, no negative news for the Paragon decisions over the Renegade choices, unique and original characters for the Paragon choice, and npc favoritism by the characters (even if they sided with the Renegade option before the choice was made).

In any case, we're not having a real discussion anymore when you just try to 'win' an arguement and not striving to understand the other person's point of view.  You also cannot prove game facts wrong by using pure speculation about the future...  The facts will win out every time.

This was a fun discussion for what it was, and I hope that maybe some time away from this will give you a broader, more unbiased understanding and non-fabricating perspective of the issue I'm bringing up here and a number of people have vocally agreed with.

Take care.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 juin 2011 - 07:43 .