175 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Undertone wrote...
What's even more funny is that at the mere thought of paragons getting punished for some choice they did, they get furious. "How is it possible to get punished for this!? It's impossible for the Rachni to be evil." .

It's not like that. There's lots of evidence the rachni were indoctrinated. If the reapers indoctrinate them again, well, that's fine. It happened the first time, right? What the real issue is, IMO, is stuff that clearly exists as a "gotcha!" as in, you thought the outcome would be good, but the designers pull one over your eyes.

All players engage in wishful thinking - thinking humanity could automatically dominate the galaxy after letting the Council die in ME1, or keeping the reaper base means victory instead of auto-indoctrinate.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
What Paragon players often don't get: In the real world, anyone with any kind of real power will not get away without making the occasional Renegade-like decision, will not get away with never having to sacrifice a principle for a result, either to stay in power or to get *anything* done that's worth doing in the first place. Again: thus: Arrival. It removes the delusion that you can always get things done without having to make a really hard decision. Only it's not the player's decision because Bioware didn't want to present those Paragons who'd choose to ignore all this with a game over screen for making an idiotic choice.

In the "real-world" being aggresive, forceful and demanding and other forms of social intimidation quite easily create social isolation. These, in-turn, lead to rather rapid betrayal. 

There's nothing wrong with having to make a hard decision  - the choice in Arrival, for example, is a no-brainer.

But there hasn't been a situation in ME beside arrival where 'getting something done' makes sense, aside from focusing on Sovereign.

ETA:

The thing with saving the Council working is that it wasn't the fleet that beat Sovereign. It was Shepard. Re-watch the ending cinematic. When Shepard kills Sovereign ASSUMING DIRECT CONROL of Saren, Sovereign shuts down. You even see its lights going off.

The actual fleets are irrelevant, and by the look of it, Sovereign would have beaten them all regardless.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 juin 2011 - 04:50 .

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

All players engage in wishful thinking - thinking humanity could automatically dominate the galaxy after letting the Council die in ME1, or keeping the reaper base means victory instead of auto-indoctrinate.

Was it wishful thinking to expect my Shepard to be able to meet the new Council in ME2, rather than experience a blanket rejection for any but "saved the Council" choice?  Man, what a jerk I was!

Modifié par marshalleck, 22 juin 2011 - 04:48 .

[In Exile]

marshalleck wrote..
Was it wishful thinking to expect my Shepard to be able to meet the new Council in ME2, rather than experience a blanket rejection for any but "saved the Council" choice?  Man, what I jerk I was!

I think Bioware justified it well, lame though it was.

[Markinator_123]

I personally thought that letting the council die had some decent results. First of all, despite some anti-human sentiment Shepard is still widely considered a hero. Plus, there is an arms race between Turians and Humans which might lead to more ships to deal with the Reapers in Mass Effect 3. Humanity is also is a stronger position than before. Politics or in particularly foreign policy is not based upon cooperation but on national self-interest. The war with the Reapers is going to be one huge enemy mine. In other words, our allegiance with the other races will be based upon a common enemy not because of the power of friendship.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
All players engage in wishful thinking - thinking humanity could automatically dominate the galaxy after letting the Council die in ME1, or keeping the reaper base means victory instead of auto-indoctrinate. 

I'd love it if ME2 turned out to be one big Xanatos Gambit, and Harbinger wanted us to capture the base the whole time. With Paragon Shep as the Xanatos Gilligan (yeah, I know it's changed)

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'd love it if ME2 turned out to be one big Xanatos Gambit, and Harbinger wanted us to capture the base the whole time. With Paragon Shep as the Xanatos Gilligan (yeah, I know it's changed)

That would be great, and would make sense of the existence of the base in the first place. Then again, if Cerberus is the enemy in ME3 and TIM had you capture the base, maybe it's not so far fetched.

[Agamo45]

The game is blatantly skewed in favor of Paragon decisions, at least so far. The Collector Base is a perfect example. If you save it, EVERYONE in your squad tells you it was a bad move, even those who initially argued for keeping it (Grunt). The Cerberus loyalist Miranda, and the ends-justify-the-means Dr. Mordin both disapprove, which seems rather out of character. And now we know that Cerberus is working for the Reapers in ME3, so keeping the base will apparently bite us in the ass. By contrast, there are no instances in which taking a risk with a paragon decision has a clear negative result, it always turns out perfectly for them.

[Skirata129]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'd love it if ME2 turned out to be one big Xanatos Gambit, and Harbinger wanted us to capture the base the whole time. With Paragon Shep as the Xanatos Gilligan (yeah, I know it's changed)

That would be great, and would make sense of the existence of the base in the first place. Then again, if Cerberus is the enemy in ME3 and TIM had you capture the base, maybe it's not so far fetched.

why do you want to see renegades punished for making the most logical decisions?

[Massadonious1]

A "logical decision" is making sure something like the Collector base is worth keeping. Unfortunately, within the constrictions of the game, we can't make such a decision.

Hoping it contains something useful and wont indoctrinate you is about as naive as the Rachni decision.

[raist747]

Where's my True Neutral option?

[Undertone]

Massadonious1 wrote...

A "logical decision" is making sure something like the Collector base is worth keeping. Unfortunately, within the constrictions of the game, we can't make such a decision.

Hoping it contains something useful and wont indoctrinate you is about as naive as the Rachni decision.

Why hope for something useful? It's facts - You have the entire process of how to Reaper-ify something, a Reaper corpse to examine as well as the Collectors and god knows how much tech and data (where did EDI get readings an conclusions from?). There are no signs of indoctrination taking place within the base considering the Collectors are are already under complete control and the humans are used to create a Reaper. Otherwise is Dr. Chakwas and the rest not indoctrinated or Shepard and team. Even if there is indoctrination then it's even better you can study it's effects.You would think with all the Cerberus experience and the Alliance Project Rho people have learned how to deal with such thing.

The war with the Reapers supercedes all other conflicts, petty vendettas, whether you like Cerberus or not. I don't like Cerberus myself (even if I'm pro-human, would try to take control over them if such option is presented in ME3) nor do I like the TIM. If presented with a choice I would hand the base to someone else. I don't have such option but I'm not going to blow up a potential chance increaser vs. the Reapers just cause I don't like Cerberus.

In theory that's like the Vorcha/Batarians coming up with a solution to win against all the Reapers and you not picking it up/destroying it cause you hate them hoping to find something else in the third game.

Anyway this is will likely slide into the Save/Keep endless debate about the base.

As for the Council choice - it would have made choice if Shepard is more popular with the aliens and less popular with the humans. Whereas focusing on Sovereing would lead to big popularity among humanity who see Shepard as their hero always looking after them and being unpopular among the aliens. That would have made sense.

Modifié par Undertone, 22 juin 2011 - 08:30 .

[Ieldra]

Undertone wrote...
I can't help but feel however a bias towards the Paragons in terms of content and choices. The first is self-explanatory. As for choices: As many have said the last choice in ME1 seems absurd - indeed to me it seemed also that anything other then "Focus on Sovereign" is completely illogical. The Paragon choice however saves the Galaxy and the Council whereas the first one succceeds in only one with negative repercussions hereafter. Similarly the last choice in ME2 ends up benefiting the Paragons yet again. Destroying the Collector base with all the possible knowledge we could potentially learn seems absurd. This is followed by harassing from the *entire* squad Shepard has, telling him/her how wrong saving the base is. Even those who previously argued for saving it. Even Miranda suddently second-guesses TIM. And of course Cerberus is now working for the Reapers in ME3.

I can't help but feel that every sensible, logical decision returns as a yet another slap to the renegades. Why present two paths, when there's a clear bias and "correctness" to only one of them? And yes this is from what we know so far.

Exactly that is the problem. I'm making a decision that appears logical and strategically valid to me, and then the game comes and tells me it's the wrong one, I should have ignored all logic and strategic reasoning and just gone with the feel-good-decision.

That's insulting. And the message it sends it even more insulting.

[Barquiel]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Exactly that is the problem. I'm making a decision that appears logical and strategically valid to me, and then the game comes and tells me it's the wrong one, I should have ignored all logic and strategic reasoning and just gone with the feel-good-decision.

That's insulting. And the message it sends it even more insulting.

Maybe your "logic" is not always right? For example, there are valid tactical reasons to save the Destiny Ascension.

Modifié par Barquiel, 22 juin 2011 - 08:50 .

[Dave of Canada]

Barquiel wrote...

Maybe your "logic" is not always right?

For every single decision?

[Barquiel]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Maybe your "logic" is not always right?

For every single decision?

Not every single renegade decision is punished.

Shiala, Rana Thanoptis and Conrad Verner - renegades lose some content. OK, that's annoying. But renegades get the job done too.

[Undertone]

Barquiel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


Exactly that is the problem. I'm making a decision that appears logical and strategically valid to me, and then the game comes and tells me it's the wrong one, I should have ignored all logic and strategic reasoning and just gone with the feel-good-decision.

That's insulting. And the message it sends it even more insulting.

Maybe your "logic" is not always right? For example, there are valid tactical reasons to save the Destiny Ascension.

Such as what? Give an example why saving the Ascension is more important then saving the galaxy - within the context and the small time you have to stop Sovereign.

EDIT: Getting the job done is kind of shallow when no one reflects on anything I've done and it seems like I never made that choice.

Modifié par Undertone, 22 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[Dave of Canada]

Barquiel wrote...

OK, that's annoying. But renegades get the job done too.

A job that's also completed by the paragon who gets bonus content.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 08:55 .

[Massadonious1]

I fail to see how the game tells you it's a "wrong" decision unless it literally flashes "WRONG" on the screen or gives you a game over screen.

All decisions are up to individual interpretation. There is no bias except your own.

[Undertone]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I fail to see how the game tells you it's a "wrong" decision unless it literally flashes "WRONG" on the screen or gives you a game over screen.

All decisions are up to individual interpretation. There is no bias except your own.

Save the Collector base and ask your crew for opinion on it. Every single one of them will tell it's the wrong choice, they doubt you made the right choice, it's outright bad. Which is extremely funny because people like Grunt, Garrus, Thane and I don't remember who else will argue for keeping the base. What they suddenly get a 360 swich of opinion? Or how about Miranda who in the entire game is super Cerberus loyalist and trusts TIM 100% suddenly is now doubting the mission parameters and so on.

[Barquiel]

Undertone wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


Exactly that is the problem. I'm making a decision that appears logical and strategically valid to me, and then the game comes and tells me it's the wrong one, I should have ignored all logic and strategic reasoning and just gone with the feel-good-decision.

That's insulting. And the message it sends it even more insulting.

Maybe your "logic" is not always right? For example, there are valid tactical reasons to save the Destiny Ascension.

Such as what? Give an example why saving the Ascension is more important then saving the galaxy - within the context and the small time you have to stop Sovereign.

EDIT: Getting the job done is kind of shallow when no one reflects on anything I've done and it seems like I never made that choice.

There are more than enough threads about the DA decision.

http://social.biowar...5/index/7654549
http://social.biowar...5/index/5457888
http://social.biowar...5/index/7582272
http://social.biowar...5/index/1986396
http://social.biowar...4/index/4758577

I don't want to repeat it all over again.

Modifié par Barquiel, 22 juin 2011 - 09:02 .

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...

Such as what? Give an example why saving the Ascension is more important then saving the galaxy - within the context and the small time you have to stop Sovereign.

It has a gigantic cannon?

And besides, the fleet already in orbit wasn't doing squat against Sovereign anyway. I doubt that more ships with virtually the same level of firepower taking however long it would of realistically taken to escort the Ascension away from the primary battlefiled would of made much of a difference in terms of "galaxy saving".

[Dave of Canada]

Massadonious1 wrote...

I fail to see how the game tells you it's a "wrong" decision unless it literally flashes "WRONG" on the screen or gives you a game over screen.

*aside from Shepard, actual ingame dialogue*

Shepard: Hey guys, what's your thoughts on the Collector Base? TIM tells me it's pretty cool.

Garrus: I don't know, Shepard. What happened here was horrible, but we have to stop the Reapers. If we destroy this base then all these people died for nothing.

Grunt: He's right. When your enemy gives you a weapon, you use it. You might not get another chance.

Legion: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.

Mordin: Agreed. Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity.

Zaeed: Someone gives you a weapon, you don't complain that it's dirty--you use it.

Jack: Seriously? Shepard, he's a user, just like Collectors.

Jacob: It's better because we'll do it? Shepard, this is way over the line.

Kasumi: Shep, he's talking about doing it all again. How will that help anything?

Miranda: I'm not so sure. Seeing it first hand--using anything from this base seems like a betrayal.

Samara: You have not really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.

Tali: Shepard, we fought to stop it. Us using it doesn't make it right.

Thane: Shepard/Siha, I've made a life of killing those who deserve to die. We must struggle to not become what we hate.

Shepard: That's awesome! Let me keep it!

*back on the Normandy*

Tali: I know you're working with Cerberus, but turning over the base to them was dangerous. I hope it doesn't come back to haunt us.

Jack: I can't believe you gave that base to Cerberus. You know how they **** with everything they touch. Guess we can just hope they blow their own asses off.

Samara: I am not sure it was wise to hand that base over to the Illusive Man. Cerberus has a very... narrow view of the galaxy. Nonetheless, the choice was yours to make, and I respect that.

Thane: I'm disquieted, Shepard. I trust you, but not the one you work for. He is driven by wrath and fear.  I fear all we've done is make him a giant.

Miranda: Before we started this mission, I never would've questioned our goals... I just hope we made the right choice. I hope whatever Cerberus finds at that base is worth it.

Jacob: Glad we gave the Collectors what they deserved, Shepard. Can't say I like handing their assets over to the Illusive Man, but at least humanity is in the clear. For now, anyway. The Collectors aren't the end of it. Can't be. I don't know what kind of time we have, but we better dust off and stay ready. You sure as hell know how to make enemies.

Grunt: The fight was great, Shepard. But giving Cerberus the base was... weak. This "Man" of theirs, he hides. He was smart to get you, but a real battlemaster charges with his clan.

Legion: An interesting choice, Sherpard-Commander. The Old Machines offered your race what the geth aspire to. Unity. Transcendence.  Now you possess the knowledge yourselves. We hope you do not use it. Your species has much potential. You should build your own future.

Garrus: I hope Cerberus can figure out what to do with all that tech. I also hope they don't decide to do something worse than what the Collectors were planning. Watch yourself, Shepard.

Mordin: Cerberus better than Collectors. Still wouldn't turn base over to them. Risky. More than risky. Dangerous. Hope you know what you're doing.

Shepard: Wait, what? Why did half of you switch your positions?!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 09:14 .

[Goneaviking]

Undertone wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Maybe your "logic" is not always right? For example, there are valid tactical reasons to save the Destiny Ascension.

Such as what? Give an example why saving the Ascension is more important then saving the galaxy - within the context and the small time you have to stop Sovereign.

EDIT: Getting the job done is kind of shallow when no one reflects on anything I've done and it seems like I never made that choice.

There's no reason for Shepherd to have assumed that it was an either/or decision; it was never presented as a choice to throw away the galaxy for the sake of the council or throw away the council for the sake of the galaxy.

One of the primary reasons that the reapers attack the Citadel is that it's the point of central government for much of the galaxy. They destroy the leadership, and resistance becomes much less effective overall.

If Shepherd wins but the council dies, it's inviting a lot of potential chaos and unrest and right at the time when he knows that the Reapers are on the way to destroy all high-order forms of organic life.

If Shepherd loses, but the council survives then they're still around to co-ordinate and inspire resistance against the oncoming invasion. It took a century to crush the Protheans after their leadership was eliminated; if their leaders had survived to rally the troops and coordinate efforts then it would have been a much harder fought campaign.

[Massadonious1]

Undertone wrote...
Save the Collector base and ask your crew for opinion on it.

I'll chalk the ones that agree then disagree with you up to wonky conversation mechanics, kinda like with the Rachni/Save the council decision. There is always someone to agree with you, and vice versa.

As far as everyone else, did you take their characters as the type to support a decision like that? I'm sure some would, but maybe seeing people turn into reaper paste changed their mind.

And why would you necessairly need validation anyway? If you think it's the right decision, then make the right decision. I certainly didn't let the opinions of my crew or ship determine whether I should sell Legion or "birth" Grunt.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 22 juin 2011 - 09:26 .