347 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
@ tjzsf

I've seen a handful of posts where people say that about the Elnora thing. So yeah, it does indeed happen. If you, or anyone else is different, good for you.

And, you just argued against yourself. Renegade choices can also provide the reward of Intimidate dialogue options. If you killed the rachni queen because you thought it was dangerous, then you're rewarded with not having to deal with the dangerous species. How much more do you need, really? Keep in mind that was classified Spectre stuff, so meeting some guy on the street who thanks you for doing it is not even realisitic.

Kindly refrain from reconstructing what I argue into your own image. First off, WRT Elnora, the fact that people reload to kill her off does not invalidate the argument that being paragon should backfire more often.

Second, "not having to deal with the dangerous species" is a punishment because it witholds both validation and content. It was also being used as an example of how rewarding renegades is intrinsically more difficult than the same for paragons, because killing someone seals off all possible content that could have been derived, especially if it was a secret thing. "Choices are their own reward" is a lazy copout of actually trying to make both sides equally valid playthroughs. Finally, Renegade here refers to "bottom-right", not "red". It also refers to non-interrupts (as there is no choice with interrupts; Elnora is only mentioned because she comes closest to a paragon action backfiring).

To answer "how much do you really need", +validation, +content, or +negative paragon consequences. Even a few of those would be enough. I can deal with freeing the rachni having only good outcomes if a similar choice (like rewriting the geth) turns out to be bad.

Yes it does: if you know she's the criminal then why would you spare her? Maybe to see what happens, once, but then there's no replay value left.

IMO if they do something where both sides get a clear set of pros and cons, that's perfect. Because then you can go back and switch it up without thinking there's a "right" choice and a "wrong" choice to what you're dealing with. They should not punish paragons. And they should not punish renegades.

And no. If you have a backbone, then you don't need content to validate your opinions. I don't care that Fist will reform himself in ME2, I kill him and other similar characters because that's what I think is the right thing to do and stand behind it. If you feel the samee way about the rachni queen, then it's the same

It's not about needing "validation" it's about seeing consequences and outcomes from one's decision. A lot of Renegade outcomes involve.... absolutely nothing like in the case of killing the Rachni Queen and various criminals. It's as if Shepard just dreamt all those past events as far as the game is concerned.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The issue is that there have been no real drawbacks to the Paragon choice compared to the Renegade choice.

That really deflates the notion of making a "difficult choice" when you 'know' that all you need to do is go blue.

[Smeelia]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The issue is that there have been no real drawbacks to the Paragon choice compared to the Renegade choice.

That really deflates the notion of making a "difficult choice" when you 'know' that all you need to do is go blue.

Mass Effect has never really been about "challenging" decisions, every choice leads you closer to completing the game (pretty much anyway) and is purely about choosing how you want the story to go (from the available options).  There are no real drawbacks to most Renegade choices and the only problems are when the developers have failed to add proper content and/or recognition (which doesn't mean there's a problem with the Paragon decisions).

I'm more worried that they actually make a lot of Paragon decisions "go wrong" just to try and please a particular group of players and in doing so they annoy a lot of players (probably a lot more) by making the third game inconsistent.  That wont even help most players who make Renegade choices and if they then continue to give no content and/or recognition of the choices to the players that did choose Renegade options there'll just be a whole lot of angry people.

[Dave of Canada]

Having Paragon decisions go wrong or punish the player helps both Renegade and Paragon players, it isn't some undue punishment that doesn't exist for no reason.

For example: Had there been no way for Paragons to charm Zaeed on the paragon path in his loyalty mission, the "punishment" for the decision would've made the Renegade decision improve. You'd either have to decide between morals or loyalty, not have your cake and eat it too. Then you'd have people debating the actual choice behind their decision instead of having them simply go "I'M BETTING ON BLUE".

There's many flaws with the Renegade system but it's almost an insult that they're trying to offer Renegade as the one who sacrifices a lot to complete the mission while Paragons don't sacrifice anything and still get the mission completed (often) with the best results.

... also I don't think the Renegade / Paragon system was built to be a "feel good" system like you think it is where you're just deciding if you want a happy or bad ending.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 23 juin 2011 - 06:43 .

[Rip504]

The choice itself is hard. What should I do in this situation? Not the outcome. Really? Is it that hard to understand?

If "betting on Blue" is how you make your decision,shame on you. That is not the way the game is meant to be played. If you want a benefit,save the Queen. You are completely missing the point.
It's not about rewarding and punishing the player. It's about the Player's choice. If you decide to kill it,then it is dead.
W.e. that is pointless as most of you will never understand it.

You carry on about adding content for the Renegade.(While offering pointless solutions.) THE CONTENT IS THERE> EITHER YOU KILLED IT OR DID NOT> THE (individual) OUTCOME/CHOICE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PARAGON OR RENEGADE> Overall game style does.

The same content is there for both players,what you decide to do with this content is up to you. So when there is no one in ME2 telling you about your cold blooded murder,you chose this path.
Paragon/Renegade isn't only about choice,it's also about gameplay style. Never was it meant to be about the outcome. When you do something everything has an outcome.

The argument Paragon gets the best benefit is wrong. Simply Wrong. Nothing in ME2 should be considered better. Your content is there,you killed it. Both styles have the potential content or lack of.

Bioware is not "adding" anything for the "paragon". NO they are keeping content from ME1 in ME2 for the "players" who chose to handle these situations differently. Blaming Bioware,because you misunderstand the "content" in ME2 is silly. They did not add anything extra or new for"paragons" in ME2,Nope wrong. So to give the Renegade new characters,experiences,and items,would be Bioware favoring the Renegade. No this way the content is there and it is up to the player to choose how to use it.

The "paragon" has the Rachni Queen,and the Renegades gets nothing. WRONG. Both parties can have or not have the content. It is there, You just killed it. Why should Bioware add new items for Renegades only? They didn't add any new items for the "Paragon" only. They simply kept old content from ME1 in ME2.

"Blue" Happens to save some lives. Why? Because the Paragon is willing to make sacrifices to save lives. When YOU simply let them die,that's not Bioware favoring the Paragon. That's you killing content. So you want to be able to kill content and have it replaced for Renegades only,while Paragons get nothing new.? (Getting your cake & eating it to.) If you want content in your game that a so called "Paragon" has,do not kill it.
So anytime you hear a Renegade stating the Paragon gets it's cake and eats it to. It is hypocritical. Because so can the Renegade,and now the Renegade wants a special piece of cake.

Simply put. THE CONTENT IS THERE.

Modifié par Rip504, 23 juin 2011 - 10:01 .

[ThePwener]

^100% true

[Rip504]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Okay, this is the main misunderstanding I think we're running into.  The issue is the benefits of Renegade choices vs Paragon choices.  If, as you say, a Paragon can make a Renegade choice, then that's not what people have an issue with.  The issue is with the choices themselves that yield the Paragon/Renegade points.

I am not saying a Paragon/Renegade can make a Paragon/Renegade choice. No I am simply saying either can make a choice. If you pick 1 or 2 "red" dialogs and end up 100% Paragon,It's hard for me to see a Paragon making a Renegades choice. Just a choice.

Opinions change. To choose only the "red" or "blue" dialog option,because you simply want to be a Paragon/Renegade is not the way the game was meant to be played.

In any Gameplay video that Bioware has put up,have you seen them stay to just one side? Or do they show you that a Paragon/Renegade can have different opinions of what should happen at different times.

Just because I am an a**hole(in real life) doesn't mean I am an a**hole to everyone all the time. No,only when I choose to be,but when I help an old lady do anything. It should be considered nice No? But I am still an a**hole. Helping that old lady did not change anything. I just happened to make a choice. = Renegades do not always have to pick the "red" dialog to be considered Renegade. It's different choices,they are colored to help the player know which is which. You wouldn't want to accidentally kill someone or something,because of a misunderstanding of narrative.!.


Edit:So it stands out.
The content is there for both parties,Bioware wants to see how the "player" deals with the choices represented in their content. Content is there and is the same for both parties. Your choice on how to deal with this content is what changes. They are not "Hooking up" the Paragon if the Renegade can have it to. It depends on the player's choice,as to what happens with that content.

Modifié par Rip504, 23 juin 2011 - 10:40 .

[Rip504]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I hope you are deliberately missing the point and not just that dense.

Until a Bioware rep tells me so. No I am right. The content is there. Your gamestyle chose the content imported to the next game. You really need to actually read more often. Replying to you is fast becoming a waste of time.

If that is being "dense",(which I can handle) why don't you try something as bold as explaining your vision of the Paragon/Renegade system. No? You would rather to just run your mouth and back none of it up?

Your point is the "Renegade" doesn't get a benefit or "new" content for your cold blooded murder of content. The Paragon who saved that content does. A Paragon could decide an all human council is best. Your missing the point,not I.

The Content is there. How you choose to deal with it is the question. You want new special items added just for you. That is complaining you didn't get what you wanted. Hence the baby pics on page 7.

Modifié par Rip504, 23 juin 2011 - 10:43 .

[Rip504]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Until a Bioware rep tells me so. No I am right. The content is there.

We should have more content. That way everyone wins, every player is satisfied. (E-mails!)

Good game design.  Try it sometime.

I agree with more content for both parties,not special pieces of cake for Renegades.
Do not add to one side and not the other. That's you crying about not getting what you wanted,because of the decisions you made. But somehow you are blaming Bioware. They didn't kill the Queen. You did. Asking for more content for both parties is a "win win". Crying for special additions to Renegade playthrough only, is crying you want it your way & didn't get it  "F da Paragon."  Maybe your the anti-social here.

Forget that. You complain with no solutions at all. "More content and everybody wins." Can you give us any sensible solutions? Probably not. (Everyone agrees with more content.)  They gave you e-mails in ME2. That is content. That is everyone losing IMO. So meaningful content for both parties. Yes. Catering to Cry babies upset with their decision making process. No.

Explain anything you have said . Explain the Renegade/Paragon. Explain the lack of content. Explain how Paragon is better. Running your mouth doesn't make it facts.  I highly doubt you could explain any of it. Confidence is a good quality. Try it sometime.

I'm done. You "win".

Modifié par Rip504, 23 juin 2011 - 11:40 .

[Rip504]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I agree with more content for both parties,not special pieces of cake for Renegades.

Nobody has asked for special pieces of cake.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

LOL Exactly the point you are missing.  If you feel as the Renegade had nothing and want "new" content added for your Renegade playthrough. You are asking for a special piece of cake.

If you would read,you would have known since yesterday (at least,& potentially earlier then that.) That I have always agreed with more meaningful content for both parties. As does the world. We all agree on that.

Modifié par Rip504, 23 juin 2011 - 11:54 .

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...


It's not about needing "validation" it's about seeing consequences and outcomes from one's decision. A lot of Renegade outcomes involve.... absolutely nothing like in the case of killing the Rachni Queen and various criminals. It's as if Shepard just dreamt all those past events as far as the game is concerned.

Ahhh!!!...*lights just switched on*...Between this comment and another chat with Saphra, I think I am getting exactly what is being asked for now....So its not about..."I want because paragon gets"...it's about, "I made all these decisions also, yet paragon is the only one who gets references (validation) to their decisions"...it's like renegade decisions didn't take place and mean nothing in ME2, you may as well have played neutral....Correct?

[Golden Owl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Ahhh!!!...*lights just switched on*...Between this comment and another chat with Saphra, I think I am getting exactly what is being asked for now....So its not about..."I want because paragon gets"...it's about, "I made all these decisions also, yet paragon is the only one who gets references (validation) to their decisions"...it's like renegade decisions didn't take place and mean nothing in ME2, you may as well have played neutral....Correct?

Yeah... pretty much. Though I think it has been said in just as many words many times. I expect that even if you understand this point now that legions of other people will continue to miss it.

All the p*ss and wind on the threads tends to drown a lot of posts out...right time, right mind frame for it to catch me.....Hopefully it will continue to trickle down to others.

[Xeranx]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Ahhh!!!...*lights just switched on*...Between this comment and another chat with Saphra, I think I am getting exactly what is being asked for now....So its not about..."I want because paragon gets"...it's about, "I made all these decisions also, yet paragon is the only one who gets references (validation) to their decisions"...it's like renegade decisions didn't take place and mean nothing in ME2, you may as well have played neutral....Correct?

Yeah... pretty much. Though I think it has been said in just as many words many times. I expect that even if you understand this point now that legions of other people will continue to miss it.

Then before this goes any further, and in hopes that things can be done about it before ME3 ships since some developers said it was done already, we have to look at whether or not the renegade outcomes were recognized in the first game.  You can't ask for recognition of renegade choices made if they weren't recognized in the same story they occurred. 
For example:
The rachni decision was recognized in ME1 whether paragon or renegade.  But killing the rachni doesn't represent a possible loose end.  So the question becomes why would it be an issue if there's an envoy for the rachni in ME2?

The choice of killing or letting Shiala live is recognized in ME1 only if you let her live.  Killing her, if I'm correct because I've never been right with killing her the way it was done, doesn't yield anything.  It doesn't result in a statement about killing Benezia's companion.  In fact a lot of us have issues with her not being present in the PS3 version as a result and we feel that she's being sidelined.  But that's for another discussion.  Anyway, all people know is that the Thorian is destroyed.  Hence why the renegade outcome of the choice is represented by a member of the colony.

I'm not trying to make an argument.  I don't play a full renegade.  I either do full paragon or paragade.  So I don't know what the outcomes were.

[Moiaussi]

Killing Shiala is recognized in ME2 though. You meet a generic colonist instead of Shiala. You sitll get an encounter. The colonist doesn't have any strange complexion so there is an indication that their condition isn't as advanced as that of a surviving Shiala.

if you help the colonists in ME2, you get a thank you email that depends on how you dealt with the colonists at Zhu's Hope. The renegade version speaks of regret at the deaths and a wish that there had been a better way, but agrees there was no choice.

So both ME1 choices can get vindication.

The non-invasive tests revealed nothing depite there being an obvious condition there, so I wouldn't be surprised if the paragon choice in ME2 results in Thorian trouble in ME3.

[Xeranx]

In regards to the letter, that's great. But in regards to the matter of Shiala, I don't think there's anyone that feels that bit is a recognition of what they've done in the previous game.

It seems as though they want others to show recognition for their actions... in addition to them knowing what actions they utilized and that the resulting occurrences in ME2 are merely reflections of their decisions. I am giving leeway here in the latter part of that statement because I just don't know if they see the rep from Feros as being a reflection of their actions.

Then there's the thought that Shiala might have more to do in the ME series and how they dislike that idea despite the fact that a clone could have been released before the Thorian died. That's always a possibility. I don't find it likely, but it is a possibility.

Still, my statement was more to the point of: if it wasn't referenced in the first game, how can you expect it to be referenced in the sequel? I brought up Shiala because I don't think she was mentioned post-Thorian event. So if she's not mentioned after the Thorian is dealt with in the first game, why should it matter that someone who left her alive gets to see her in a cameo?

This also goes to the matter of the Rachni. The decision to kill the Rachni is recognized in the discussion with the Council afterwards, but there's no mention of it in ME2 (I think). But I'm wondering why there would be a mention of something that was essentially made top secret by Saren in the first place.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Smeelia wrote...

Mass Effect has never really been about "challenging" decisions, every choice leads you closer to completing the game (pretty much anyway) and is purely about choosing how you want the story to go (from the available options).  There are no real drawbacks to most Renegade choices and the only problems are when the developers have failed to add proper content and/or recognition (which doesn't mean there's a problem with the Paragon decisions).

I'm more worried that they actually make a lot of Paragon decisions "go wrong" just to try and please a particular group of players and in doing so they annoy a lot of players (probably a lot more) by making the third game inconsistent.  That wont even help most players who make Renegade choices and if they then continue to give no content and/or recognition of the choices to the players that did choose Renegade options there'll just be a whole lot of angry people.

The choices are supposed to be tough to make.  If you know without even hearing the problem that the blue button is going to give you the best outcome... something is wrong with the design of the game.

If some Paragon decisions "go wrong" compared to the Renegade choice, it'd make choices something you have to actually think about again (if you desire the best outcome as Bioware would write it).  Otherwise, the track record has been the Paragon choice always yields the best overall results with regards to lives lost, content, and positive validation is concerned.  There's not a single time where the Renegade choice yields a better result... that's the issue. 

Rip504 wrote...

The choice itself is hard. What should I do in this situation? Not the outcome. Really? Is it that hard to understand?

If "betting on Blue" is how you make your decision,shame on you. That is not the way the game is meant to be played. If you want a benefit,save the Queen. You are completely missing the point.
It's not about rewarding and punishing the player. It's about the Player's choice. If you decide to kill it,then it is dead.
W.e. that is pointless as most of you will never understand it.

//snip snip

 

The choice is not hard if you "know" the blue button always results in the best outcome.  There's nothing to even bet on in that regard.

I'm not sure how you consistently miss what the arguement is and repeat things that aren't even the issue.

If you kill someone, they're dead... of course, everyone knows that.  That doesn't mean a cameo can't be done or a decision can't be understood by atleast some unique person to the Renegade path.  Two different things.  It also doesn't mean such a decision couldn't have lead to a better result than the Paragon alternative.

You are forgetting that the story is something that's written and the outcomes to decisions are what Bioware comes up with... not something that they "had" to do.

The way Bioware has written Mass Effect thusfar is that they are no hard decisions, as a hero, you can save whoever you want to save and trust whoever you want to trust, no matter how the odds are stacked or what's at stake or what the situation is... as long as it's the blue button.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 juin 2011 - 05:42 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Rip504 wrote...

I am not saying a Paragon/Renegade can make a Paragon/Renegade choice. No I am simply saying either can make a choice. If you pick 1 or 2 "red" dialogs and end up 100% Paragon,It's hard for me to see a Paragon making a Renegades choice. Just a choice.

Opinions change. To choose only the "red" or "blue" dialog option,because you simply want to be a Paragon/Renegade is not the way the game was meant to be played.

Either can make a choice, sure... but that's not the issue.  The issue is the Paragon/Renegade choices themselves.

In any Gameplay video that Bioware has put up,have you seen them stay to just one side? Or do they show you that a Paragon/Renegade can have different opinions of what should happen at different times.

Just because I am an a**hole(in real life) doesn't mean I am an a**hole to everyone all the time. No,only when I choose to be,but when I help an old lady do anything. It should be considered nice No? But I am still an a**hole. Helping that old lady did not change anything. I just happened to make a choice. = Renegades do not always have to pick the "red" dialog to be considered Renegade. It's different choices,they are colored to help the player know which is which. You wouldn't want to accidentally kill someone or something,because of a misunderstanding of narrative.!.


Edit:So it stands out.
The content is there for both parties,Bioware wants to see how the "player" deals with the choices represented in their content. Content is there and is the same for both parties. Your choice on how to deal with this content is what changes. They are not "Hooking up" the Paragon if the Renegade can have it to. It depends on the player's choice,as to what happens with that content.

We're talking about the repercussions of picking the blue dialogue compared to the red dialogue.  The Paragon choice vs the Renegade choice. 

The results are not the same for both parties.

The results are not equal to both parties.

There is no single game benefit (as demonstrated in the game) that puts a Renegade choice ahead of the Paragon one.. but Paragon choices constantly have their benefits demonstrated in the game through lives saved, cameos/additional content, and positive validation.

When you realize that the game wraps around Paragon decisions and know that regardless of the idea, if it's "blue" it's going to work out better than any choice you could hope to make in the game... that kinda diminishes your personal stake in the choice.  I'd prefer to pick something other than Paragon because (in this scenario) it might actually yield a better outcome.

Knowing that Paragon choices always yield the 'best' outcome is the problem people are having..

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I hope you are deliberately missing the point and not just that dense.

I'm not sure anymore

[Moiaussi]

Xeranx wrote...

In regards to the letter, that's great. But in regards to the matter of Shiala, I don't think there's anyone that feels that bit is a recognition of what they've done in the previous game.

It seems as though they want others to show recognition for their actions... in addition to them knowing what actions they utilized and that the resulting occurrences in ME2 are merely reflections of their decisions. I am giving leeway here in the latter part of that statement because I just don't know if they see the rep from Feros as being a reflection of their actions.

There have been some complaints that it being a generic colonist that it should be someone specific, and it not being someone 'special', it is some sort of slight. In other words, different content seems not to be enough, it has to be different in similar ways or it doesn't count as being there at all.

Not sure how that could be achieved without it just ending up feeling contrived.

[Smeelia]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Having Paragon decisions go wrong or punish the player helps both Renegade and Paragon players, it isn't some undue punishment that doesn't exist for no reason.

For example: Had there been no way for Paragons to charm Zaeed on the paragon path in his loyalty mission, the "punishment" for the decision would've made the Renegade decision improve. You'd either have to decide between morals or loyalty, not have your cake and eat it too. Then you'd have people debating the actual choice behind their decision instead of having them simply go "I'M BETTING ON BLUE".

That's simply not the way I (and many others) play, I say "what would Shepard do" and it's different depending on how I'm playing Shepard.  The fact that I can be nice and save everyone doesn't mean I have to, there's a whole other interesting story about a Shepard that "does what he has to" and doesn't take chances on ideals.  The neutral options rarely have a unique outcome but that doesn't mean I don't want to pick them either (they tend to come off as more professional, which I like).

The way the game is designed works quite well with my way of playing, it doesn't work so well if you're only ever going for the "best" in-universe outcome.  If the game was designed so that it was possible to "lose" by making the wrong choices then that would be worse for role-playing by forcing you to stick to a "winning" path in order to complete the game (even if that path is a mix of "Renegade" and "Paragon").  They could have consequences that are negative in-universe and don't stop you "winning" the game for both sides but that's not really different to the current setup (all options are equally valid).

Changing Paragon outcomes would be a pretty substantial change in theme, some people might like it but others who are used to the way the games work would not.  There's no "right" way for them to do it, there'll always be people that like the system and people that don't.

Xeranx wrote...

Still, my statement was more to the point of: if it wasn't referenced in the first game, how can you expect it to be referenced in the sequel? I brought up Shiala because I don't think she was mentioned post-Thorian event. So if she's not mentioned after the Thorian is dealt with in the first game, why should it matter that someone who left her alive gets to see her in a cameo?

That's not really the point, one of the main ideas of the game is that it's all one big story and that events in each game have an impact on the next.  The assignments, cameos and such are supposed to be "bonuses" for people that import games but there are a number of choices you can make that combine to result in you getting exactly the same experience as a new player with no bonuses at all.  That's a problem because it means that some players are missing out just because they played in a particular way.

The issue isn't really the storyline of the game, it's the lack of recognition for player loyalty and the unfortunate implication (however unintentional) that people that don't get cameos and such are doing things "wrong".

Moiaussi wrote...

There have been some complaints that it being a generic colonist that it should be someone specific, and it not being someone 'special', it is some sort of slight. In other words, different content seems not to be enough, it has to be different in similar ways or it doesn't count as being there at all.

I think that would be taking it too far, the fact that it still recognises whether or not you saved the colony is good enough in my view.  The real problem is that if you went through the Feros mission in ME1 and didn't save the colony you miss out on an entire assignment in ME2 and there's almost no mention that it even happened (I think there's a news report that you may or may not hear).

Modifié par Smeelia, 24 juin 2011 - 10:56 .

[Xeranx]

Smeelia wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Still, my statement was more to the point of: if it wasn't referenced in the first game, how can you expect it to be referenced in the sequel? I brought up Shiala because I don't think she was mentioned post-Thorian event. So if she's not mentioned after the Thorian is dealt with in the first game, why should it matter that someone who left her alive gets to see her in a cameo?

That's not really the point, one of the main ideas of the game is that it's all one big story and that events in each game have an impact on the next.  The assignments, cameos and such are supposed to be "bonuses" for people that import games but there are a number of choices you can make that combine to result in you getting exactly the same experience as a new player with no bonuses at all.  That's a problem because it means that some players are missing out just because they played in a particular way.

The issue isn't really the storyline of the game, it's the lack of recognition for player loyalty and the unfortunate implication (however unintentional) that people that don't get cameos and such are doing things "wrong".

And this is why I and others never liked the idea of making each subsequent game easy for newbies to pick up especially with the way they did it.  And they pretty much put their feet in their mouths with the way the comic for the PS3 version was done since it doesn't mention or mentions very little of the Geth which is the backdrop to Tali's possible exile, the decision to rewrite or destroy the Geth heretics as per Legion's arc, and skews the story in such a way it makes someone think it flows in a certain order. 

It probably brought more confusion to the story in referencing Saren in Kasumi's quest and why a golden statue of a Turian is being offered to someone as a gift.  Not saying you don't know this, but just putting it out there in case the developers read this.  And thinking about it this is probably why they won't do another trilogy which is a sad thing because we know their reasons for pushing the trilogy as they did and now their experiment will be the last because of how they managed it.

Smeelia wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

There have been some complaints that it being a generic colonist that it should be someone specific, and it not being someone 'special', it is some sort of slight. In other words, different content seems not to be enough, it has to be different in similar ways or it doesn't count as being there at all.

I think that would be taking it too far, the fact that it still recognises whether or not you saved the colony is good enough in my view.  The real problem is that if you went through the Feros mission in ME1 and didn't save the colony you miss out on an entire assignment in ME2 and there's almost no mention that it even happened (I think there's a news report that you may or may not hear).

I know this wasn't in response to me, but I have to say that for some of the less tactful renegade players they expressed their arguments poorly because what I got from them is exactly what Moiaussi stated.  Creating a thread titled "Punishing Paragons" was one of the worst things to do if they were trying to garner support when they could have had dialogue which would have brought about the realization that we have here.  When you start focusing on a segment of the fanbase to vent your ire instead of the people responsible for it you're not going to get many people to join your cause.

In any case, I feel it would have been better to have Liz Baynum featured in the renegade portion of that encounter.  If you saved Shiala then you get her cameo.  If you saved the colony, but not Shiala then you get Liz Baynum.  If you didn't save the colony and didn't save Shiala, but imported a save then you get Ethan Jeong who gets his just desserts in realizing he's been infected with the spores.   Good? Not good?  I don't know, but that Jeong deserves something in my mind.  

Then IF they had to make the game approachable to newbies then that encounter would have a random colonist or maybe no encounter at all.

Modifié par Xeranx, 24 juin 2011 - 01:03 .