347 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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..

The point you and many Renegades are missing...is that there is no "best" option...Paragon does not always = "best" The "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...if you dont think the Rachni can be trusted...then killing the Rachni is the "best" outcome for you. If you don't think Shiala is teeling the truth or is infected or w/e...then killing her is the "best" choice for you. Just because people are alive for Paragon does not mean it's automaticly "better" then a path where they are dead. If you think the Paragon path = the better path then clearly you aren't a Renegade player...because if you were you wouldn't consider it better, you would consider the Renegade path alot more logical...all the things you considered threats are gone and can no longer be a hinderence, I honestly don't see the issue here...you got the outcome you wanted...they have been dealt with and won't bother you again. The Paragons saved the Rachni...as a result they'll probably end up fighting more enemies (Rachni Husks) and might have to deal with the Rachni themselves...thats a consequence you don't have to deal with, you made your journey easier for yourself. I don't see how having some random bulls*** scientist come up to you and go "Oh thanks for killing the Rachni"  is going to change anything. The Paragon Cameos are just a meaningless as not having them at all...so I dont understand all the complaining. If you truly believe you made the right choice...you dont need some random NPC to pat you on the head and tell you so. Like Rip said just picking the exact same region of dialouge is playing the game wrong. You dont NEED to pick every single one of those to be a Renegade. You simply pick what you think if the right call...if you think the right call is always the lower right option by default then thats fine, If you think its always the upper left option thats fine...but your simply screwing yourself out of a more unique experience by sticking with those options every single time. Also like Rip said...Fist tells you youll never see him again, Bioware tells you this directly...so now your pissed because it's true? Yea that totaly makes sense...

The point is...the "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...Paragon is only the best choice if you think the Paragon choice is the right choice to make...Renegade players clearly don't think it is...therefore Paragon is not the "best" choice to them.

[Smeelia]

Xeranx wrote...

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.

I like that idea, I think killing Jeong saves the colony (could be wrong) so that could work.  If killing Jeong doesn't save the colony then you'd have a fourth variable to cover.

I'm not sure what the Jeong assignment would be though, I wouldn't help him with his tests just for himself (well maybe if the money was good enough or something).  It could be a quest about trying to get a starchart for a different colony or make a new contract I suppose.

Modifié par Smeelia, 24 juin 2011 - 02:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

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.

I like that idea, I think killing Jeong saves the colony (could be wrong) so that could work.  If killing Jeong doesn't save the colony then you'd have a fourth variable to cover.

I'm not sure what the Jeong assignment would be though, I wouldn't help him with his tests just for himself (well maybe if the money was good enough or something).  It could be a quest about trying to get a starchart for a different colony or make a new contract I suppose.

Killing Jeong is the single worst thing you can do towards saving the Colony. The man alive is worth 12 of the 13 points needed to save the colony.

Quething wrote...

Alright, guys, more testing done, and here's what I've learned: Don't save Jeong.

Points needed to save Feros: 13
-> Each colonist is worth 1 point
-> Each completed sidequest is worth 1 point
-> Convincing Jeong is worth 12 points
-> Sparing Shiala is worth 5 points
-> Shiala and Jeong overlap

So, if you kill Jeong and Shiala, you need to spare 13 colonists, or 9 colonists plus do 4 sidequests, or 11 plus 2 sidequests, etc etc. I've tried various combinations of these and it always works out to a 13 point cutoff, they're apparently interchangable.

If you spare Jeong, you only need 1 sidequest, or 1 colonist.
If you spare Shiala, you need 8 colonists, or 5 colonists and 3 sidequests, etc etc.

If you spare Jeong and Shiala, though, they overlap rather than add to each other, so you still only have 12 points, so you still need to save at least one colonist or do at least one sidequest or Feros will die.

I have not been able to reproduce any kind of run where Jeong lives, any colonist lives, and Feros dies.

That said, I haven't been particularly meticulous about which colonists I knock out and which I kill. So if, say, sparing one named colonist vs sparing one "Colonist" colonist makes a difference, that would have slipped my testing process.

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killing Jeong is the single worst thing you can do towards saving the Colony. The man alive is worth 12 of the 13 points needed to save the colony.

Ah that's interesting, I didn't know it worked that way.  You'd definately need that extra possibility then since there's a lot of ways for the colony to die with Jeong dead.  I still like the idea of Jeong coming back if he's alive though, he was a fun character.

[Ieldra]

kylecouch wrote...
The point you and many Renegades are missing...is that there is no "best" option...Paragon does not always = "best" The "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...

Wrong.

Here's an example:

If you leave the Rachni queen alive, you'll gain either an ally or an enemy in ME3. These outcomes are, obviously, not equal. Let's call them the +1 and the -1 outcome, for it is clearly better, regardless of your being a Renegade or a Paragon, if you gain an ally than an enemy.

If you kill the Rachni queen, you have no chance of either. I call that the 0 outcome because it's better than having an additional enemy but worse than having an additional ally.

Now if the Rachni queen is going to be an ally in ME3, then for the purpose of the main storyline, which is about defeating the Reapers, leaving her alive is the better option. Objectively. There is no "your choice is always the best" about it. It is, in a very final and undisputable way, the better decision.

Would I object to that as a Renegade? No, I wouldn't, because you can't know in advance and this kind of decision is always a gamble. I also don't think that any single decision must be balanced in its outcomes. If I killed the queen, I made a decision with a non-optimal outcome. It happens.

But if there is a pattern like that, such as that in almost all cases the Paragon always gets the +1 result instead of the equally likely -1, while Renegades always get the 0, then there is something wrong with the universe. It is as if fate favors Paragons. That's what people don't like.

In such a universe, there would be no point to making Renegade decisions, because Renegade decisions are all about results, and results ONLY, while Paragon decision are also about principles. If Renegade decisions don't occasionally yield better results than Paragon decisions, then there is no point to making them, unless you're sociopathic jerk and see some intrinsic value in killing the Rachni queen.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juin 2011 - 03:08 .

[TheRevanchist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
The point you and many Renegades are missing...is that there is no "best" option...Paragon does not always = "best" The "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...

Wrong.

Here's an example:

If you leave the Rachni queen alive, you'll gain either an ally or an enemy in ME3. These outcomes are, obviously, not equal. Let's call them the +1 and the -1 outcome, for it is clearly better, regardless of your being a Renegade or a Paragon, if you gain an ally than an enemy.

If you kill the Rachni queen, you have no chance of either. I call that the 0 outcome because it's better than having an additional enemy but worse than having an additional ally.

Now if the Rachni queen is going to be an ally in ME3, then for the purpose of the main storyline, which is about defeating the Reapers, leaving her alive is the better option. Objectively. There is no "your choice is always the best" about it. It is, in a very final and undisputable way, the better decision.

Would I object to that as a Renegade? No, I wouldn't, because you can't know in advance and this kind of decision is always a gamble. I also don't think that any single decision must be balanced in its outcomes. If I killed the queen, I made a decision with a non-optimal outcome. It happens.

But if there is a pattern like that, such as that in almost all cases the Paragon always gets the +1 result instead of the equally likely -1, while Renegades always get the 0, then there is something wrong with the universe. It is as if fate favors Paragons. That's what people don't like.

In such a universe, there would be no point to making Renegade decisions, because Renegade decisions are all about results, and results ONLY, while Paragon decision are also about principles. If Renegade decisions don't occasionally yield better results than Paragon decisions, then there is no point to making them, unless you're sociopathic jerk and see some intrinsic value in killing the Rachni queen.

The point is...the results are in the perspective...you all just look at it like it's automaticly better, when you have no way of knowing if it is. Just because more people are alive does not automaticly = better. All those people being alive might cause more problems them it solves due to political arguments and such. You

[Dean_the_Young]

Absolute subjectivity has no basis to stand because it is, itself, subjective. It's a lot like absolute moral relativism, or Platonic physics: no matter how consistent it is internally, internal consistency is nothing without external support.

[Moiaussi]

Xeranx wrote...

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.

Liz survives either way though, so if she shows up without Shiala, why wouldn't she be there with Shiala? Moreover, she is the one who sends the thank you email so if you help the colonists with the testing in ME2, you do hear from her either way with the renegade version being different than the paragon version and still a thank you. So if you went renegade (ME1) paragon (ME2), you get vindication for your ME1 choice in the form of a thank you.

While it is true that you seem to get nothing if you go renegade (ME1/renegade(ME2), they have set the situation perfectly for renegade (ME2) turning out to be the best choice for ME3. There doesn't even have to be a second thorian to fight. The colonists could just end up dying from the spores when the more invasive tests could have found them a cure, meaning a thank you from them in ME3.

[Ieldra]

kylecouch wrote...
The point is...the results are in the perspective...you all just look at it like it's automaticly better, when you have no way of knowing if it is.

That's bullsh*t. Within the established context, which is about a war to defeat the Reapers, a living Rachni queen who has become an ally is indisputably better than a dead one. There is no subjectivity about it and no perspective that would make it different. Only additional in-world facts make a difference, such as yes, she helps against the Reapers but there's another Rachni war down the road and we're told about that in the epilogue. But that would be a different outcome and the Paragon/Renegade decision would have to be recalculated.

BTW: we are in a fictional story, so only events we are told about count. Saying "there may be other problems down the road we don't know about" is not enough to counter the slant of decisions made in the established context. The universe is what we are shown. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juin 2011 - 03:53 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killing Jeong is the single worst thing you can do towards saving the Colony. The man alive is worth 12 of the 13 points needed to save the colony.

The colony or the colonists? There is a difference. If the cost of saving the colony is Exogeni being rewarded for their actions (which is the result of saving Jeong, if you don't show him a way to spin this in the company's interests, he commits 'suicide by Spectre'), then I think the galaxy is better off with him dead. It is better for the gene pool too.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gee, Moiaussi. I wonder if that question you raised is addressed in the very context of the discussion you picked the quote from?

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's an example:

If you leave the Rachni queen alive, you'll gain either an ally or an enemy in ME3. These outcomes are, obviously, not equal. Let's call them the +1 and the -1 outcome, for it is clearly better, regardless of your being a Renegade or a Paragon, if you gain an ally than an enemy.

If you kill the Rachni queen, you have no chance of either. I call that the 0 outcome because it's better than having an additional enemy but worse than having an additional ally.

Now if the Rachni queen is going to be an ally in ME3, then for the purpose of the main storyline, which is about defeating the Reapers, leaving her alive is the better option. Objectively. There is no "your choice is always the best" about it. It is, in a very final and undisputable way, the better decision.

That would only really apply if it has an impact on the overall outcome of the game though.  If you can make all the "0" (or "-1") choices and still complete the game then there isn't a "best" option.  Since they've said that Renegades and Paragons can both win the game it's likely that there wont be "game winning" and "game losing" decisions, prior to ME3 at least (it'd also be consistent that every decision still moves you forward and that may not change).  It's possible that they could have some sort of "points" system like that but then Paragades/Renegons could potentially end up in "unwinnable" or "near unwinnable" situations (which would seem to go against what the games have done so far).

The storyline outcomes aren't as important since they're a matter of personal taste and there'll always be people that aren't happy with things.

[Xeranx]

Moiaussi wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

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.

Liz survives either way though, so if she shows up without Shiala, why wouldn't she be there with Shiala? Moreover, she is the one who sends the thank you email so if you help the colonists with the testing in ME2, you do hear from her either way with the renegade version being different than the paragon version and still a thank you. So if you went renegade (ME1) paragon (ME2), you get vindication for your ME1 choice in the form of a thank you.

While it is true that you seem to get nothing if you go renegade (ME1/renegade(ME2), they have set the situation perfectly for renegade (ME2) turning out to be the best choice for ME3. There doesn't even have to be a second thorian to fight. The colonists could just end up dying from the spores when the more invasive tests could have found them a cure, meaning a thank you from them in ME3.

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

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

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

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

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
The point is...the results are in the perspective...you all just look at it like it's automaticly better, when you have no way of knowing if it is.

That's bullsh*t. Within the established context, which is about a war to defeat the Reapers, a living Rachni queen who has become an ally is indisputably better than a dead one. There is no subjectivity about it and no perspective that would make it different. Only additional in-world facts make a difference, such as yes, she helps against the Reapers but there's another Rachni war down the road and we're told about that in the epilogue. But that would be a different outcome and the Paragon/Renegade decision would have to be recalculated. 

Unless of course some or all of them end up indoctrinated and end up on the other side anyway, which we don't know yet.

It is possible though that saving the Rachni will end up clearly better. So? Should every decision have to be wishy washy with no clear advantage to either choice? Or should a game be required to have perfectly even distribution of moral results?

So far there has been no real tangible benefit to any decision, just hints at such. The closest thing to a penalty is not getting a meeting and side mission from Gina if you sold her out to Anoleis in ME1, but if you sold her out just for no real reward or benefit whatsoever just because you could, aren't you getting what you deserve?

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...
That would only really apply if it has an impact on the overall outcome of the game though.  If you can make all the "0" (or "-1") choices and still complete the game then there isn't a "best" option.

Wrong again. I don't know why people insist to overlook that very obvious fact, but not all wins are equal. Renegade decisions usually have significant downsides. I take it as a given that few people see any intrinsic value in a dead Rachni queen. If you kill her, you do it because your Shepard thinks it's necessary. Intrinsically, killing the queen is undesirable, even if only from a moral viewpoint. Which means, if you can win with a living queen and all other things are equal, then the scenario with the living queen is more desirable.

Yes, both P and R can win the game. But if the sum of downsides of the Renegade decisions is bigger than the sum of downsides of the Paragon decisions, then the scenario favors Paragons. If no Paragon decision has a significant downside, then Paragon is automatically better since Renegade decisions usually have one. And I'm not talking about political consequences like who rules the galaxy, because that *IS* a matter of perspective. I'm talking about irrefutable downsides like lost worlds, dead friends and team members, number of innocents dead from our decisions and so on.

Again: Renegade decisions are about results only, results at the expense of intuitive morality. Their net results must sometimes be better than the Paragon results, for that is their only justification.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gee, Moiaussi. I wonder if that question you raised is addressed in the very context of the discussion you picked the quote from?

Gee, Dean, I didn't see any implications to saving Jeong in there other than trying to tie him into a fate of the fate of the colonists encounter of some sort.

If they did bring him in, it would have similar problems to Liz in that if he survives any related issues would be there anyway. I suppose it could have been an Exogeni rep instead of Baria, but if it was Exogeni I can't see it all playing out on Illium rather than somewhere more Exogeni controlled.

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Wrong again. I don't know why people insist to overlook that very obvious fact, but not all wins are equal.

No, you're missing the point.  A story with a "sad" ending is no "worse" than a story with a "happy" one, that means it's just a matter of preference in terms of which outcome/story you prefer.

There are other games where you can "win" the game but "lose" the story and plenty of stories that you can spend the time to experience but don't end well.

Imagine ME2 was a purely isolated and self-contained story (to avoid the issue of save transfer).  It's possible to play through it and have an ending where Shepard and his team all die and you can still complete the entire game in the process.  There's nothing wrong with this ending and you can still enjoy the game, if the ending doesn't appeal to you then it's a matter of opinion.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gee, Moiaussi. I wonder if that question you raised is addressed in the very context of the discussion you picked the quote from?

Gee, Dean, I didn't see any implications to saving Jeong in there other than trying to tie him into a fate of the fate of the colonists encounter of some sort.

Yeah. I know.

That's generally your problem.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

kylecouch wrote...
The point you and many Renegades are missing...is that there is no "best" option...Paragon does not always = "best" The "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...if you dont think the Rachni can be trusted...then killing the Rachni is the "best" outcome for you.

I'll only speak for myself here, but I'm not missing anything.  The Paragon choice so far has always equaled the "best" choice.  If you don't think the Rachni can be trusted... and it turns out that they can be trusted (nothing in the past 2 games indicate otherwise), then it was better to trust them is it not?  And even more, you get a cameo appearance as extra content to prove the point even further.

The Renegade choice has nothing of the sort. 

If you don't think Shiala is teeling the truth or is infected or w/e...then killing her is the "best" choice for you.

It turns out that nothing in the game even hints at that being a beneficial move... certainly no cameo or relevant information validating the choice... 

Just because people are alive for Paragon does not mean it's automaticly "better" then a path where they are dead. If you think the Paragon path = the better path then clearly you aren't a Renegade player...because if you were you wouldn't consider it better, you would consider the Renegade path alot more logical...all the things you considered threats are gone and can no longer be a hinderence, I honestly don't see the issue here...you got the outcome you wanted...they have been dealt with and won't bother you again. The Paragons saved the Rachni...as a result they'll probably end up fighting more enemies (Rachni Husks) and might have to deal with the Rachni themselves...thats a consequence you don't have to deal with, you made your journey easier for yourself. I don't see how having some random bulls*** scientist come up to you and go "Oh thanks for killing the Rachni"  is going to change anything. The Paragon Cameos are just a meaningless as not having them at all...so I dont understand all the complaining. If you truly believe you made the right choice...you dont need some random NPC to pat you on the head and tell you so. Like Rip said just picking the exact same region of dialouge is playing the game wrong. You dont NEED to pick every single one of those to be a Renegade. You simply pick what you think if the right call...if you think the right call is always the lower right option by default then thats fine, If you think its always the upper left option thats fine...but your simply screwing yourself out of a more unique experience by sticking with those options every single time. Also like Rip said...Fist tells you youll never see him again, Bioware tells you this directly...so now your pissed because it's true? Yea that totaly makes sense...

The point is...the "best" choice is whatever you want your game to be...Paragon is only the best choice if you think the Paragon choice is the right choice to make...Renegade players clearly don't think it is...therefore Paragon is not the "best" choice to them

Please read this carefully so that it's not repeated so much...  This isn't about whether a person felt they personally made the "right choice"... but what the game honors as the "right choice."  It's obvious that the game favors the Paragon decision at each encounter because any sacrifice a Renegade made thusfar has not been validated while the Paragon decision has.  It's easy to feel you made the right choice, but another for the game to actually validate that feeling.  Being a "true Renegade" has nothing to do with it.  It's about making a choice other than the Paragon one if you want to try and bring about the best outcome that a hero would want.  To actually have to think about your choices... instead of knowing that the story is rigged to blue.

The way outcomes to choices are handled are up to Bioware... they didn't have to write it the way they did, and they haven't done much of anything to show an upside to picking a choice other than the Paragon one... that's the problem. 

Bioware has been consistently giving the Paragon choices less lives lost, more content, and more positive validation in the game than Renegade choices.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gee, Moiaussi. I wonder if that question you raised is addressed in the very context of the discussion you picked the quote from?

Gee, Dean, I didn't see any implications to saving Jeong in there other than trying to tie him into a fate of the fate of the colonists encounter of some sort.

Yeah. I know.

That's generally your problem.

Translation: you have nothing to actually add and are just trolling, gotcha.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

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

[Moiaussi]

Xeranx wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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

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

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

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

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Wrong again. I don't know why people insist to overlook that very obvious fact, but not all wins are equal.

No, you're missing the point.  A story with a "sad" ending is no "worse" than a story with a "happy" one, that means it's just a matter of preference in terms of which outcome/story you prefer.

There are other games where you can "win" the game but "lose" the story and plenty of stories that you can spend the time to experience but don't end well.

Imagine ME2 was a purely isolated and self-contained story (to avoid the issue of save transfer).  It's possible to play through it and have an ending where Shepard and his team all die and you can still complete the entire game in the process.  There's nothing wrong with this ending and you can still enjoy the game, if the ending doesn't appeal to you then it's a matter of opinion.

Now *you* are missing the point. ME2 is in several ways not self-contained, which is exactly why this is a problem. Whether I replay with different Shepards or know about other's experiences, I will eventually know every permutation of consequences there is. I will know, that in some alternate plotlines, whether played by myself or by others, someone was not required to make any hard decisions and still got the same result I did. It's nothing you can point to in-world, so the containment of the story doesn't matter at all. It's visible from a meta-perspective and affects the way the universe is perceived by a collective of players.

In fact I am very much prepared to live with negative consequences of my actions. I don't even like perfect outcomes and use my meta-perspective to write less optimal outcomes into my games. But I want my pragmatic Renegade choices to actually BE pragmatic at times. Why? Because that's the way things work in reality, because that's the reason why the whole consequentialist school of morality even exists. By making Paragon decisions always result in the best outcome from the viewpoint of results AND deontological morality, the raison d'etre for the consequentialist school of morality ceases to exist. A core moral conflict of the real world is not present in the ME universe any more, and it becomes a fairy tale universe where it's always enough to do the intuitively good without losing anything in results. Any moral choices become meaningless because they aren't moral choices any more. And because I replay the game and it is experienced by a collective of players who talk about it, I know all this.

Edit:
It comes down to this:

Mr Gogeta34 wrote...
This isn't about whether a person felt they personally made the "right
choice"... but what the game honors as the "right choice."

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juin 2011 - 07:47 .

[Rip504]

[quote]Mr Gogeta34 wrote...
This isn't about whether a person felt they personally made the "right
choice"... but what the game honors as the "right choice."[/quote]
[/quote]


I was gonna say more,but decided not to.

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

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

It's true.

Modifié par Rip504, 24 juin 2011 - 08:42 .