Have werewolves running rampant in your lands if Human noble (who may be going for the throne...)?
nhsk wrote...
Like in DA:O, siding with the werewolves against the elves.. Why would you want to A) betray your own people if Elf?
Only origin to to do that would be a sadistic evil hell bent dwarf who hates elves, but in DA:O elves and dwarves doesn't have that rivialry.
Now siding with the wolves is just stupid evil.
Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 23 juin 2011 - 04:18 .
tobynator89 wrote...
Has anybody suggested the psycho that escaped from purgatory? He mentioned that he's obliged to hunt us down because apparently we took a shot at him.
tobynator89 wrote...
Has anybody suggested the psycho that escaped from purgatory? He mentioned that he's obliged to hunt us down because apparently we took a shot at him.
Some Paragon decisions may end up being strategically inferior. After Illium, it's very very unlikely that this is one of them. Deal with it.nhsk wrote...
Because god forbid that paragon actions may be "wrong"
Ah yes, "a wrong decision by a paragon" - the sentiment that the colour blue can be associated with bad decisions, we have dismissed that claim.
Modifié par JamieCOTC, 23 juin 2011 - 04:34 .
RolandX9 wrote...
Some Paragon decisions may end up being strategically inferior. After Illium, it's very very unlikely that this is one of them. Deal with it.nhsk wrote...
Because god forbid that paragon actions may be "wrong"
Ah yes, "a wrong decision by a paragon" - the sentiment that the colour blue can be associated with bad decisions, we have dismissed that claim.
Speaking of problematic Paragon decisions...I really want it to be Balak. I was too Paragon to kill him then, and I really want a chance to say, "no civilians to hide behind this time, murderer."
Iamnotahater wrote...
Yes but what were the consequences of said decision in DA II? You got an extra mission to regain the Dalish trust. For those of us who were pragmatic (brokered peace by making the werewolves human again) we got a less rich experience.
Which isn't really realistic at all. Bioware can try and explain it away with a cutscene but in DA II there should have been werewolves roaming around the forest and people (elves human etc) should have blamed you for it.
I really hope in Mass Effect 3 it really hit home the effect of previous decisions and some just flat out aren't fixable.
Maybe my playthrough falls in to the later category. I don't know. But DA II was a joke in this regard.
Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 23 juin 2011 - 04:38 .
JamieCOTC wrote...
My money is on Balak. I think everyone wanted to kill him whether they did or not. There have even been a couple of threads asking for him to be in ME3. Though I think it will depend on how many players actually kept him alive. Myself, out of three Sheps, I only have one who let him go.
The Rachni Queen could offer a warning (ala Benezia) that she is lost to indoctrination and will have to be killed. We already know the rachni will be used as husks in ME3, so that lends credence to the Queen being indoctrinated.
Toombs: If he's still alive, he definitely has it out for Shepard. His instability makes him doubly dangerous. Toombs also has a connection to Sole Survivor Shep and backgrounds have been confirmed to have some importance in ME3.
Rana Thanoptis: Though I have no doubt she will show up in ME3, I'm unsure she will be personally gunning for Shep. She doesn't seem the type to give out warnings either.
Shiala: I'm certain BW is setting up something for her and it could be a tragic end.
Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 23 juin 2011 - 04:55 .
leonia42 wrote...
levi0000 wrote...
I never met Helena Blake. Or Toombs. And Balak is in DLC, which is optional. Rana Thanoptis doesn't seem like much of a threat.
It's directed to ALL Mass Effect 1 importers. It has to be an encounter that was completely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is also implied that it is something all ME1 importers would want to see. Puzzling this tease is, yes? More incentive to replay ME1.
DarkSeraphym wrote...
Iamnotahater wrote...
Yes but what were the consequences of said decision in DA II? You got an extra mission to regain the Dalish trust. For those of us who were pragmatic (brokered peace by making the werewolves human again) we got a less rich experience.
Which isn't really realistic at all. Bioware can try and explain it away with a cutscene but in DA II there should have been werewolves roaming around the forest and people (elves human etc) should have blamed you for it.
I really hope in Mass Effect 3 it really hit home the effect of previous decisions and some just flat out aren't fixable.
Maybe my playthrough falls in to the later category. I don't know. But DA II was a joke in this regard.
Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "pragmatic". Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are attempting to say, but it seems to me like what you are attempting to do is use "pragmatic" and "stupid" in ways that allow you to form positive statements. In reality, what you are doing is making normative ones. What you call pragmatic in allowing the werewolves to become elven again, I call silly and neither of us is actually right or wrong. Do not take offense as that is not how I intend it. Instead, what I am trying to do is point out that pragmatism is based upon the context of the decision and the way in which the people involved think. You obviously valued something in the elves that I did not while I valued the brute strength of the werewolves.
Aside from that, I do not feel that it would have been as realistic to have werewolves roaming around the Free Marches since that decision was made in Ferelden and I would have wondered how the werewolves got to the Free Marches in the first place. Personally, I think no reference should have really been given since there is such a difference in location but that is an argument for another time.
Back to the point at hand though, what I want to see is consequences and rewards to the previous decisions. In some ways, I want to see exactly what you have described, a situation that cannot be fixed by Shepard simply doing a quest. However, I also don't want to see BioWare assigning values like "pragmatic" and "stupid" to decisions because that is a matter of interpretation. In the case of Mass Effect, I would like to see some decisions on the behalf of both Paragons and Renegades to see punishment.
No, in ME you can kill Rana but in ME2 you can't and if Zaeed is in the party at the time he states how that might come to bite you in the arse some day. I think in ME it was Wrex who said something similar.MortalEngines wrote...
leonia42 wrote...
levi0000 wrote...
I never met Helena Blake. Or Toombs. And Balak is in DLC, which is optional. Rana Thanoptis doesn't seem like much of a threat.
It's directed to ALL Mass Effect 1 importers. It has to be an encounter that was completely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is also implied that it is something all ME1 importers would want to see. Puzzling this tease is, yes? More incentive to replay ME1.
To me, the most obvious one seems to be Harkin? He's both unavoidable in ME1 and 2 and he has beef with Shepard. He also has shown to be able to be snidey and sneaky enough to not be phased at the idea of killing Shepard.
Other than that, Rana always seemed a bit off to me, as if she was purposefully acting innocent so that Shepard didn't harm her, but I think she's killable in ME2? I'm not sure.
Retour en haut