347 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Moiaussi wrote...
So the fact that you don't have the risk of a future post-reaper Rachni war isn't a benefit? Why did you kill her then?

Actually, only one of my eight Shepards killed her. Because she wouldn't risk a hostile Rachni species ON TOP of the Reapers as enemies (doing Noveria after Virmire). Without the Reapers, she would've risked it.  

On what is your 'just like in the real world' based?

You want a list of historical events where Renegade-type decisions turned out to be the best judged by the goal of those who made them, with those people being sane and reasonable? If you count the number of lives lost compared to the projected costs of the Paragon-like alternative, what about dropping the first nuclear bomb? Also, you can count almost every tactical decision in a war where a commander, knowing there was a less bloody alternative, nonetheless spent more of his soldiers' lives in order to achieve a bigger or faster victory and was successful with that gamble. And why did they do it? Not because they were callous, at least not always, but because they thought in the end it would be worth it and result in a shorter war, less lives lost long term or suchlike.

It is a fact: in the real world, Renegade-like decisions sometimes *are* the best, long term. Actually, I suspect the real world is much more Renegade than you think, because most people don't like to believe those events and governments tend to hide them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2011 - 06:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And hey, remember that discussion with Rana Thanopolis about Okeer and his project, on that character-developing recruitment mission?

No? Guess you killed her.


Hey, how about Noveria? Both of them? In the space of 50 steps from eachother. Unless you did Renegade, in which case there's no one at all.

Rana doesn't exactly have much to say, the same goes for all the cameos really.  You're really not showing a significant loss of content, yes there's less but it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't exactly change the game if it didn't show up for Paragons either.

Much to say compared to the game? No, which is why I don't maintain that the poor handling of cameos ruins the game. Much to say compared to the part of the game that is supposed to reflect and honor choices from the prior game, the conceit the entire Mass Effect franchise is built on? Cameos are a big part of that, arguably the biggest.

Individually, any one of the cameo complaints is itself small, and in fact vary by point: I criticize the Rana cameo not because she isn't there, but the decision to tie completely uninvolved character development and exposition to her was, well, dumb on a number of levels. It isn't even like Bioware didn't create a number of generic NPC's to do other aspects of info-filling elsewhere in the same level.

But taken together, the handling of cameos creates a patter where individual flaws could be overlooked. Does it dominate the game? No, and I don't know anyone who has ever said. Do cameos dominate the part of the game dedicated to refering back to the first game and recognizing and acknowledging our choices and how they shaped the galaxy and the people it in? Yes, cameos dominate that, with news reports secondary and emails a far third.

If you think my position is that bad cameo handling ruins the game... well, you thought wrong. Bad cameo handling diminishes the game's handling of cameos, which is a significant marketing and attraction point of the Mass Effect series as a whole: a sci-fi epic in which past decisions carry over... and being dropped or absent is not a carry-over.

Mass Effect is a good enough game with a disappointingly 'meh'-handling on tie-ins to its prequel, and it's meh on the cameo because it fumbled half of it.

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, only one of my eight Shepards killed her. Because she wouldn't risk a hostile Rachni species ON TOP of the Reapers as enemies (doing Noveria after Virmire). Without the Reapers, she would've risked it.

If the Rachni decision isn't one of the decisions you feel has unrealistic results, why discuss it in the same breath?

You want a list of historical events where Renegade-type decisions turned out to be the best judged by the goals of those who made them? If you count the number of lives lost compared to the projected costs of the Paragon-like alternative, what about dropping the first nuclear bomb? Also, you can count almost every tactical decision in a war where a commander, knowing there was a less bloody alternative, nonetheless spent more of his soldiers' lives in order to achieve a bigger or faster victory and was successful with that gamble. And why did they do it? Not because they were callous, at least not always, but because they thought in the end it would be worth it and result in a shorter war, less lives lost long term or suchlike.
It is a fact: in the real world, Renegade-like decisions sometimes *are* the best, long term. Actually, I suspect the real world is much more Renegade than you think, because most people don't like to believe those events and governments tend to hide them.

Counter dropping the bomb with the German genocide program, which was definately 'renegade.' Even the bombs though didn't neccessarily have the ideal outcome. We don't know how the war would have gone if they hadn't been dropped. We can only speculate. There is no opportunity to try different scenarios in RL.

In war, there are examples where attrition style combat has been best and others where diplomacy has been best. It is case by case.

Most of the decisions in ME are minor and not battlefield scenarios. The main battlefield decision in ME has the renegade option 'stay in reserve and don't commit yet' rather than 'Attack! Attack! Attack!'

And other than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which actually be countered by Arrival), you haven't cited any examples. You have just declared they exist.

[Bailyn242]

strive wrote...

I have a problem with things such as; Balak in BDtS Paragon outcome. He does nothing over the two years Shepard has been dead. Does nothing throughout ME2. What is the point of killing him if he fades into obscurity? If you let him go he essentially bested a Spectre.. I think he would be revered throughout Batarian terrorism circles, and have radical followers ready to do more acts of terror.

That choice makes me think Bioware didn't want to punish people for being the "hero" and saving three hostages. Many of Bioware's moral dilemmas don't punish the Paragon as much as the Renegade. At least as of Mass Effect 2.

I hope Bioware gets away from morality stats in future games. Paragon/Renegade is just so frustrating.

1) it is DLC and..

2) His story may have continued but we just haven't heard about it. Heck, he could have been caught and killed in some minor action during the 2 years we were dead. 

Simply put, the story in ME2 is very narrow and highly linear in nature.

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's twisted reasoning. I take Renegade decisions, so I must like their outcomes? Yes, I like the projected outcomes - only they never materialize. Or rather, the downsides that can reasonably be expected to result from some Paragon decisions, which are the main reason why I sometimes take Renegade decisions, never materialize.

If you don't like the Renegade decisions and outcomes either then why take issue with the Paragon ones specifically? You can't get a downside from a Paragon decision if you're taking a Renegade one, similarly you can't get a downside (or upside) from a Renegade decision if you're taking a Paragon one.  The consequences of the other decision don't really exist in your universe and there's nothing "wrong" with your choice either way.  That might not be exactly what you want in terms of choices but that is how the games work so far.  In a way that might be the reason behind the morality system, you're not choosing "win" or "lose" you're just choosing if it'll be "win by Paragon" or "win by Renegade".

Ieldra2 wrote...

And yes, if I kill the Rachni Queen and win by the same margin (i.e. with the same amount of undesirable side effects) as I would if I did not kill her, then the decision to kill her is plainly, very, very obviously the second best.

That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.  The choices you make aren't about being challenged to make the "right" decision, they're about the kind of story you want to experience.  I can't say I wouldn't like a game that does offer that kind of challenge but Mass Effect certainly isn't, and has never tried to be, it.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because, as I also said, I don't take Renegade options because I prefer to be an assh*le to people or because I prefer to win by killing more people instead of fewer. I take them because I believe (or rather my Shepard believes) the Paragon alternative would have a downside I can't afford.

When I said you "prefer" those outcomes, I wasn't implying you like seeing things work out "badly" if that's what you thought.  I simply meant that those outcomes seem to appeal to you more as part of a "realistic" story.  It's rarely my intention to insult.

Ieldra2 wrote...

And I make my decisions that way, I make my Shepards characters that take the occasional Renegade decision out of perceived necessity because I expect things to work out reasonably like in the real world. I believe Bioware set out to create a world with grey morality, they even said so explicitly, so I think my expectation is very reasonable. If that turns out wrong, if the ME universe is really a fairy-tale universe where doing the intuitively good always gets the best result, then I am in a different world than Bioware promised I would be.

I've never been surprised by the kind of game Mass Effect is.  I suppose I can see how it might have been implied that they were going to make a game of "tough choices" that challenge the player.  What they really seem to have meant was that Shepard has difficult decisions to make and can end up dealing with bad situations but that they'll always work out.  They did say plenty about Shepard being the hero and being able to win against impossible odds but I can certainly understand that different people had different expectations and Mass Effect can't be everything to everyone.

Maybe their next game in the Mass Effect universe (if they're doing some, I'd be disappointed if they don't) will provide something more like the experience you hoped for, where choices really affect whether you win or lose and it's not always an easy decision.

Ieldra2 wrote...

"Arrival" tells you that the ME universe intends to be what they promised. You really have to kill those 300k batarians for the greater good. It's a Renegade decision forced on Paragon players which I'm sure some of them aren't happy about. Only they wriggled out of it being an actual decision for the player because they didn't want to present Paragons with a "game over" screen. Now make the same logic work for one or two of the bigger decisions whose consequences materialize in ME3 and I'll have no reason to complain any more.

I suppose the problem with Arrival is that, as you say, if you had the option to not destroy the relay then the story would end there if you choose that option.  That would certainly be an issue of content if decisions like that can cut your game down so drastically.  To be honest, I'd prefer decisions between two roughly equal but drastically different outcomes since those work to give players choice while still allowing all players to complete the game and feel like their decisions mattered.  The only example I can think of from Mass Effect is the Kaiden/Ashley choice, either way you lose someone and all you can do is choose who goes.  I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, they could have made it that choosing to save the people attacking the tower goes wrong and neither squadmate survives while you at least save one if you go to the bomb but then that would be exactly the sort of thing you're complaining about (with one decision being the "superior" one).

I don't really think the Arrival type of mission would work well in ME3, it might feel like too drastic a change in tone and it'd take choice away from the player rather than adding any depth to the decisions.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you think my position is that bad cameo handling ruins the game... well, you thought wrong. Bad cameo handling diminishes the game's handling of cameos, which is a significant marketing and attraction point of the Mass Effect series as a whole: a sci-fi epic in which past decisions carry over... and being dropped or absent is not a carry-over.

Mass Effect is a good enough game with a disappointingly 'meh'-handling on tie-ins to its prequel, and it's meh on the cameo because it fumbled half of it.

That's fair enough but my point was that Renegades aren't exactly significantly worse off that Paragons in terms of the content they get.  As you say, the removal of cameos altogether wouldn't ruin the game and they generally didn't add much either (even for those who did get them).

I agree that the save file transfer from ME1 to ME2 wasn't handled too well but that wasn't really the subject being discussed.

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you think my position is that bad cameo handling ruins the game... well, you thought wrong. Bad cameo handling diminishes the game's handling of cameos, which is a significant marketing and attraction point of the Mass Effect series as a whole: a sci-fi epic in which past decisions carry over... and being dropped or absent is not a carry-over.

Mass Effect is a good enough game with a disappointingly 'meh'-handling on tie-ins to its prequel, and it's meh on the cameo because it fumbled half of it.

That's fair enough but my point was that Renegades aren't exactly significantly worse off that Paragons in terms of the content they get.  As you say, the removal of cameos altogether wouldn't ruin the game and they generally didn't add much either (even for those who did get them).

I agree that the save file transfer from ME1 to ME2 wasn't handled too well but that wasn't really the subject being discussed.

In terms of the entire game? I'd agree. In terms of cameos? No: that the cameos themselves tend to be small in scope doesn't change their comparitive qulity. Something small and good compared to small and bad still stands on its relation of good and bad.

I would argue that removal of the cameos altogether would very much ruin the main conceit of the Mass Effect franchise, which is that of a multi-volumn epic in which Choices Matter (and are shown). The conceptual difference between Mass Effect and, say, the Dragon Age series is that while Dragon Age has no interest or intent in portraying choices and decisions as in any way significant for the sequels, that  carry-over aspect is supposed to be central to the Mass Effect universe. Take away the roleplay carryover from Mass Effect and it stops being, well, Mass Effect as it intends to be.

[Ieldra]

Moiaussi wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually, only one of my eight Shepards killed her. Because she wouldn't risk a hostile Rachni species ON TOP of the Reapers as enemies (doing Noveria after Virmire). Without the Reapers, she would've risked it.

If the Rachni decision isn't one of the decisions you feel has unrealistic results, why discuss it in the same breath?

Because, thrice damn it, this is not about any SINGLE decision, but about PATTERNS of decisions. The results of a single decision can fall any way, and if one result appears considerably less likely, or even *is* less likely all things considerated, reality is still like that that things sometimes happen that way. If sparing the Rachni queen turns out to be the best decision and her being alive has a huge positive influence on the outcome of the Reaper war, I have no problems with it and in fact in this case it's just as plausible as the alternative. But if ALL major decisions are like that, if in ALL of them the Paragon option turns out to be the best, then the universe stops to be believable.

To be totally clear for the logically challenged:
If it turns out, for instance, that
(1) Sparing the Rachni queen has huge benefits and negligible drawbacks, AND
(2) Keeping the Collector base has a considerable downside (almost confirmed) and a negligible benefit, AND
(3) Letting Balak go has no discernable downside (so far it hasn't), AND
(4) Having killed Rana Thanoptis will deprive you of an important resource to battle indoctrination but has no discernible benefit, AND
(5) Destroying the Genophage cure will weaken the krogan, depriving the galaxy of strength to combat the Reapers,  but no other ally will be strengthened as a result.
...and so on....

...then I'm going to have a problem with the ME universe. And now of course comes the obvious reply "But we don't know that yet". Well no, we don't, but the signs are there for the genre-savvy player to see. Or do you really expect that the Rachni queen will go back on her word, or that the indoctrinated Rachni we might face in ME3 will in any way have a bigger impact on the final outcome of the war than the friendship of the queen? Do you really expect, after *all* the team members disagree with the decision to keep the Collector base, that having it will really result in an advantage big enough to cancel out the fact that it strengthens an ally of the Reapers? If you do, then I pronounce you genre-blind.

The pattern is not yet here, but it is emerging. Very, very clearly. And I very much suspect that if it doesn't become complete in ME3, it's only because of the complaints here. I wouldn't put so much effort in writing these posts if I didn't believe things could yet turn out better.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm. Apparently for many Renegade players the problem of Renegade and Paragon consequences is a matter of lost content, primarily.

For me, it's not. Less content is annoying, but I can live with it if it's a reasonable consequence. The dead are dead, I don't need a substitute to make up for lost content. No, for me it's a matter of world integrity. Consequently, it is the effect Renegade actions have in the story that concern me, not my rewards as a player.

It's like this: every time I see a Paragon decision implausibly have a better outcome than a Renegade decision, something in me says "That's weird". Then again, implausible things sometimes happen, so a single instance or two won't bother me much. But if a pattern starts to emerge, and the great majority, if not all, Paragon decisions turn out to have no (story-affecting) downside, and Renegade decisions no (story-affecting) upside, then I'm starting to think "That's not how things work!" and my suspension of disbelief starts to get unsustainable.

A universe where the intuitively right, feel-good action always results in the best outcome is a fairy-tale universe. I cannot believe in it. It's a problem much greater than being rewarded with a little more content here and there. It literally destroys the story for me.

Plausibility and content are both aspects I value: I want decisions to succede and fail on their plausibility (and, sometimes, despite it), but I also view that content, if not in-game setting, shouldn't waver that much.

I generally keep those two positions separate.

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because, thrice damn it, this is not about any SINGLE decision, but about PATTERNS of decisions. The results of a single decision can fall any way, and if one result appears considerably less likely, or even *is* less likely all things considerated, reality is still like that that things sometimes happen that way. If sparing the Rachni queen turns out to be the best decision and her being alive has a huge positive influence on the outcome of the Reaper war, I have no problems with it and in fact in this case it's just as plausible as the alternative. But if ALL major decisions are like that, if in ALL of them the Paragon option turns out to be the best, then the universe stops to be believable.

To be totally clear for the logically challenged:
If it turns out, for instance, that
(1) Sparing the Rachni queen has huge benefits and negligible drawbacks, AND
(2) Keeping the Collector base has a considerable downside (almost confirmed) and a negligible benefit, AND
(3) Letting Balak go has no discernable downside (so far it hasn't), AND
(4) Having killed Rana Thanoptis will deprive you of an important resource to battle indoctrination but has no discernible benefit, AND
(5) Destroying the Genophage cure will weaken the krogan, depriving the galaxy of strength to combat the Reapers,  but no other ally will be strengthened as a result.
...and so on....

...then I'm going to have a problem with the ME universe. And now of course comes the obvious reply "But we don't know that yet". Well no, we don't, but the signs are there for the genre-savvy player to see. Or do you really expect that the Rachni queen will go back on her word, or that the indoctrinated Rachni we might face in ME3 will in any way have a bigger impact on the final outcome of the war than the friendship of the queen? Do you really expect, after *all* the team members disagree with the decision to keep the Collector base, that having it will really result in an advantage big enough to cancel out the fact that it strengthens an ally of the Reapers? If you do, then I pronounce you genre-blind.

The pattern is not yet here, but it is emerging. Very, very clearly. And I very much suspect that if it doesn't become complete in ME3, it's only because of the complaints here. I wouldn't put so much effort in writing these posts if I didn't believe things could yet turn out better.

1) Sparing the Rachni queen has one cameo of her promising to help. That doesn't mean they will actually be a help. So far it is just a promise. They will probably show up, but could still end up indoctrinated and their helping against the Reapers doesn't preclude another Rachni war sometime in the future. Renegades know there cannot be. Paragons cannot be sure.

2) There is an assumed downside to keeping the base but only because Cerberus sides with the Reapers. "Considerable' isn't confirmed at all. It may actually end up the better choice since it gives the Reapers something they may feel the need to protect, meaning they can be targetted there, or they might be targetable through there, or you could simply recapture it (more content!) and you Shepard ending up with its tech. Cerberus doesn't need tech from it, Since they are appearantly siding with the Reapers, they would have the Reapers as a direct source of tech with or without the base. Regardless, we don't know the effects. We just have assumptions.

3) He may have killed many already. It may even be used against Shepard in the trial for all we know (Balak was in that system and this was your chance for revenge after he got away!). He may even kill after the Reaper war is over. Renagades know he can't. Paragons only know that they haven't heard of him doing anything bad and even then only so far.

4) What important resource? I think I missed something there.... Rana just gives you some background information regarding Okeer in ME2, nothing of strategic importance.

5) If you kept it, you kept it on the Normandy, which means Cerberus almost certainly had access too it. Unlike the base, the genophage cure is information the Reapers couldn't provide to Cerberus. That also means Cerberus would have information that could allow them or the Reapers to create their own genophages. And you figure that is definately going to end up pro paragon? I don't think they will go so far as to have Cerberus or the Reapers develop their own genophage, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cerberus gets their own army of Krogan, or if any advantages from curing the Krogan are offset by (1) a matching Cerberus army, (2) a new post war Krogan rebellion due to a return to rampant population growth, (3) many or most of your new Krogan army getting indoctrinated because they are too numerous to monitor, or (4) any combination of the above.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 17 juin 2011 - 08:18 .

[Ieldra]

@Moiaussi:
I ask again: given what we know and what has already happened, do you really believe the Rachni Queen's presence will be more hindrance than help, or that the Collector base, after all the team members' disagreements as a whole series of red flags for the player, will be more help than hindrance? Do you really believe that destroying the Genophage cure will have any discernable benefit over keeping it? Really? Pah. Bioware has written a pretty conventional hero story so far. If it happens, it will because they learned from the reaction that something was not right.

Regarding Balak: what we aren't shown or told doesn't happen. First rule of fiction. If we aren't told that Balak did bad things after we let him go, then for all intents and purposes we must assume that he didn't. For this is, after all, something that would affect our protagonist and would be told if it had happened.

I said it's an emerging pattern, not yet complete. I don't know if you can't see the pattern or if you choose to ignore it to further your side of the argument. I'd be very surprised if especially the Rachni and the CB decisions turned out to favor Renegades. I am hoping for such a surprise especially in the case of the CB, but I won't hold my breath.

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Because, thrice damn it, this is not about any SINGLE decision, but about PATTERNS of decisions. The results of a single decision can fall any way, and if one result appears considerably less likely, or even *is* less likely all things considerated, reality is still like that that things sometimes happen that way. If sparing the Rachni queen turns out to be the best decision and her being alive has a huge positive influence on the outcome of the Reaper war, I have no problems with it and in fact in this case it's just as plausible as the alternative. But if ALL major decisions are like that, if in ALL of them the Paragon option turns out to be the best, then the universe stops to be believable.

To be honest, I'd be disappointed if several Paragon decisions turn out to be bad at this point.  I'll probably still like the game but I think it'll have given in to the pressure to try and be "dark" and "edgy" that is far too common these days and I think it'll lose some of it's uniqueness.

In my view, Shepard is a hero and by luck, skill or whatever actually manages to overcome incredible odds and win in the end.  Renegade Shepard may have more of a "dark" outcome (depending on your point of view) but they don't win any less than Paragon Shepard and both stories should be quite enjoyable to me.  As for realism, I don't think it's unrealistic for Shepard to manage to do the amazing and get a great outcome by taking chances on it.  I certainly don't think that it's representative of reality as a whole but I don't want every story to be predictable and have the "expected" and "realistic" outcome.  The very fact that Shepard does manage to do well against the odds and by taking chances makes for a great story and it wouldn't be as interesting if it was likely that it would work that way in the first place.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In terms of the entire game? I'd agree. In terms of cameos? No: that the cameos themselves tend to be small in scope doesn't change their comparitive qulity. Something small and good compared to small and bad still stands on its relation of good and bad.

I would argue that removal of the cameos altogether would very much ruin the main conceit of the Mass Effect franchise, which is that of a multi-volumn epic in which Choices Matter (and are shown). The conceptual difference between Mass Effect and, say, the Dragon Age series is that while Dragon Age has no interest or intent in portraying choices and decisions as in any way significant for the sequels, that  carry-over aspect is supposed to be central to the Mass Effect universe. Take away the roleplay carryover from Mass Effect and it stops being, well, Mass Effect as it intends to be.

Just to clarify, I'm in favour of including content that carries over for both Paragons and Renegades.  Renegades still get some carry over from the state of the Council, Wrex and the Virmire survivor, the Paragon content isn't that much extra on top so I don't really think it constitutes a "punishment" for Renegades and it certainly doesn't seem like proof that the developers "hate" Renegades.  I do think that it would have been better if there had been alternative cameos and more effort to make something of the decisions in the previous game and I don't think that removing content for Paragons or making content with more negative outcomes for Paragons would do anything to improve the situation.

Modifié par Smeelia, 17 juin 2011 - 08:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Not that Wrex is a paragon/renegade decision in the first place: if you don't have the persuasion points or the family armor, there's no way to let Wrex live. Living is both Paragon and/or Renegade, diying is neither.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades do not get any "real" carry-over from Wrex or the Council because what they get is identical to what somebody not even importing gets.

Yeah, I was going to mention that but the forum ate my post.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not that Wrex is a paragon/renegade decision in the first place: if you don't have the persuasion points or the family armor, there's no way to let Wrex live. Living is both Paragon and/or Renegade, diying is neither.

That's true and that's why it's a shame there isn't more effort put into making different decisions carry over.  It doesn't really matter if the outcomes are positive or negative, it'd be nice to just have outcomes.  They have implied that ME3 will be trying to do better in this regard so hopefully that will work out and cover a lot of decisions from ME1 and 2.

Modifié par Smeelia, 17 juin 2011 - 09:26 .

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Moiaussi:
I ask again: given what we know and what has already happened, do you really believe the Rachni Queen's presence will be more hindrance than help, or that the Collector base, after all the team members' disagreements as a whole series of red flags for the player, will be more help than hindrance? Do you really believe that destroying the Genophage cure will have any discernable benefit over keeping it? Really? Pah. Bioware has written a pretty conventional hero story so far. If it happens, it will because they learned from the reaction that something was not right.

Regarding Balak: what we aren't shown or told doesn't happen. First rule of fiction. If we aren't told that Balak did bad things after we let him go, then for all intents and purposes we must assume that he didn't. For this is, after all, something that would affect our protagonist and would be told if it had happened.

I said it's an emerging pattern, not yet complete. I don't know if you can't see the pattern or if you choose to ignore it to further your side of the argument. I'd be very surprised if especially the Rachni and the CB decisions turned out to favor Renegades. I am hoping for such a surprise especially in the case of the CB, but I won't hold my breath.

After the were shot down in an encounter the Normandy should have easily been able to disengage from (per the codex), forced to work with Cerberus and Council suddenly didn't believe in Reapers, I'd say nothing in ME2 counts as evidence of anything in ME3.

As for Balak, the renegade arguement for killing a terrorist at the expense of hostages has nothing to do with whether they commit another act of terrorism but everything to do with the fact they might. There hasn't been any followup equivalent of 911. Does that mean the raid on Osama was wrong?

By the way, it is interesting that you say the Rachni 'and' the Collector base rather than 'or.' You need them both to go pro-renegade to be satisfied then? 

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades do not get any "real" carry-over from Wrex or the Council because what they get is identical to what somebody not even importing gets.

You are holding the default being renegade against paragons? And as others have said, Wrex isn't a paragon/renegade situation. Renegades can save him too.

[Smeelia]

Moiaussi wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades do not get any "real" carry-over from Wrex or the Council because what they get is identical to what somebody not even importing gets.

You are holding the default being renegade against paragons? And as others have said, Wrex isn't a paragon/renegade situation. Renegades can save him too.

To be fair, it does mean that Renegades get less when they import.  Of course the only alternative would be to have circumstances that only apply if you don't import, that might still be better overall though (you wouldn't get anything extra in relation to those aspects for importing but you'd get something different at least).

There aren't really that many changes that are unique to Paragons though, only three cameos (none of which have missions) that I can think of and maybe some e-mails (I'm not sure about those).  That's still something but it's only a few minutes of difference.

Modifié par Smeelia, 17 juin 2011 - 10:15 .

[Moiaussi]

So what should they have used as a default for new players? And if renegade choices really are as horrible as advertised, aren't BW thumbing their noses at them?

[Smeelia]

Moiaussi wrote...

So what should they have used as a default for new players? And if renegade choices really are as horrible as advertised, aren't BW thumbing their noses at them?

A happy medium of sorts.  Perhaps having a new council that isn't really human controlled and more uncertainty rather than having aliens opposed/supporting humans.  There's not really that much reference to the difference between Renegade and Paragon choices in this area so it wouldn't mean re-writing the game (still more work though).

As for the other point, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest it's malicious even for people who consider it particularly bad.

Modifié par Smeelia, 17 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Paragon Shepards are like Vash from Trigun. They believe that everything can work out all the time and somehow it actually does.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Could've had the new council refuse to see new players, but agree to see continuing players...

[Rip504]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

This thread is the Punishing Paragons thread's cool younger sister.

There's a lot of talk on these forums about how Paragon options are an "I win" button.  In short: with the sole exception of the Elnora encounter, Paragon options never have negative outcomes.  The commonly proposed solution is to Punish Paragons - make some of those decisions backfire.

Here's an alternative idea.  Instead of Punishing Paragons, let's think more about Rewarding Renegades.  Instead of gimping the Paragon "I win" button, why not give the Renegades one, too?

This thread is either to discuss the merit of the idea itself (should there even be one "I win" button, let alone two?) or to suggest ways Renegades could have been Rewarded for their decisions.  I'll kick off with one:

ME1 RACHNI DECISION.  
Paragon reward: a cameo character who reinforces the Paragon decision and promises rachni aid in ME3.
Renegade reward: nada.

Now the Paragon Punishment route would probably suggest instead of a peaceful asari emissary, the Paragons should have to deal with a tearful asari refugee whose bondmate and nine adorable children were torn to shreds by terrifying psychic insects.  But I don't think that's really ideal because all it amounts to is BioWare saying LOL U WERE PLAYING IT WRONG!

Proposed Renegade Reward: extra dialogue on Tuchanka.  A krogan praises Shep for "having the quad to finish the job" and asks why s/he made the decision.  Shep can express remorse (Paragon) or ruthlessness (Renegade).  The krogan ends the conversation by saying that whatever the reason, Shep is a hero to a lot of krogan.  "I just expected you to be a bit taller."

This way both Paragons and Renegades get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside - they're both playing it right.  Thoughts?

I am all for more content for both playthroughs,but as long as it carries some weight and resolves something. The Krogan do not care about the last Rachni Queen. They wiped out billions. You can not even tell the one Krogan about it,(when you are showboating about killing the Reaper,Spectre etc.). The Krogans problem lies with the Salarians,and Turians. One Queen opposes no threat to the Krogans as of now. Krogans do not seem like a race that thinks in long term goals to me.

Also the Rachni is suppose to be considered a secret from the galaxy. They know you killed some crazed Rachni and blew some hotlabs to save humans. Shepard and maybe the council are the only ones worried about the Rachni Queen.

So yes let's add content and reward Renegades,but not with pointless random crap like this. Just my opinion.

Good job for killing a single bug Shepard. We only killed billions of them. Krogans find honor in fighting a strong enemy,and could careless about anything else.(except reproduction.) The Rachni oppose no real threat anytime soon for the Krogan,And as they won before I assume they are confident they could do it again.

If anything the company that was running the test on Noveria,should hook Shepard up with an e-mail/appearance(rep) and a weapon or at least some credits or even resources. For keeping their dirty secret under wraps and cleaning up their mess. Content with weight,but not pointless content.!.

Modifié par Rip504, 18 juin 2011 - 09:28 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Could've had the new council refuse to see new players, but agree to see continuing players...

Presumably the reason was either a VA cost issue or a space issue. It is unlikely that it was intended as a deliberate slight to anyone.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

You are holding the default being renegade against paragons?.

I'm not holding it against Paragons, I'm holding it against Bioware.

It's true that isn't a Paragon/Renegade choice (not fully anyway), but regardless it is a choice that cheats the player if they choose to kill Wrex.


EDIT

In a default game, what I'd have done is this: Wrex was never recruited by Shepard and so formed no bond with him, but, naturally, did not die on Virmire.

He none-the-less returned to Tuchanka and gained control of his clan but because Shepard dismissed him at the Citadel he does the same on Tuchanka, not even granting Shepard on audience.

So you want to punish new players with no encounter at all then? BW dismissed that theory.