1768 réponses à ce sujet

[AngelicMachinery]

Lumikki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It seems you've invented a new definition of positive and negative actions completely unique to yourself. Do define

I don't think so. I don't want to waste my time. I readed you previous posts.

Positive of negative action?

Case 1
You are police man and you see man in street and he fits description of known terrorist you where looking.
You shout for the man to stop and pull you gun, but he start running and you shoot the man to the dead?

Case 2
You go to friends birthday party and give you friend a gift (packet).

Can I give the man the gift and shoot my friend?

I like options.

[Patchwork]

Does the packet contain drugs?

[AngelicMachinery]

Ser Bard wrote...

Does the packet contain drugs?

Oh,  good question!

[knightnblu]

Much has been made of the equation of Jack Bauer = Renegade, but I believe this to be an error. Jack could be harsh, but given the stakes, lack of time to utilize other methods to achieve the required result, and the hardened nature of his quarry, you would be hard pressed to find a flaw in his morality. In fact, if Jack had not done what he did in order to get the job done, many would have perished because of that failure.

In fact, it isn't until the final season that Jack goes rogue and that is because he is denied justice in the murder of Rene Walker. Up until that point, I can't think of a single example where Bauer was cruel or hostile without good justification. It is only when the President decides to shelve justice in favor of political expedience can you find decisions made by Bauer that are morally questionable or flat out unethical. While there are indeed some renegade choices that are Baueresque, there are many more that are morally questionable or flat out unethical/illegal. Shepard is able to get away with this because Spectres are above the law.

Therefore the renegade player can explore this non-traditional choices at his discretion. Bauer never had that luxury. Therefore, I believe that there is little comparison between the renegade and Bauer, and any attempt to do so is comparing apples to oranges.

[Lumikki]

mauro2222 wrote...

Hehe Lumikki can you explain? xD

I was trying to teach difference between that action is self can be postive and negative too, without yet knowing what result of that action cause. That's why I only provided action, not the result.



More related the topic. What people here is asking is that game developers creates content where player can do negative action, but get in end positive result. Issue is this.

Example:

Paragon player saves a man and later same man explode bomb and kills a few innocent people.
Renegade player kills the man and later there is no negative result because of it.

Renegade actions positive result isn't about getting rewards as positive outcome, but lack of negative outcome. (Is done)
Paragons action positive result is by getting positive reward from the actions. (is done)

Now what you ask is this.

Paragon action negative result is getting negative result from positive actions. (Can be done, punished from mistake)
Renegade action negative result is to get negative result from negative actions. (Can't be done in game, because players would be punish by been renegade all the time.)

Point been what you ask, doesn't affect renegade at all in game. It only change paragon situation.

Now there is posibility to think what some are saying as gameplay wise. That negative action get rewarded because result was postive. How ever, it seems little odd that players action get rewared as killing man, because the man was bad? Usually when action gets rewared because result, then actions result wans't even renegade, the result changed it to paragon. So, is this about making so that if action is renegade or the paragon, the rewards are given based results to both types of actions? What means someone else has to thank you player for action in renegade case, because target of action is most cases dead.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 11:41 .

[mauro2222]

Lumikki wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Hehe Lumikki can you explain? xD

I was trying to teach difference between that action is self can be postive and negative too, without yet knowing what result of that action cause. That's why I only provided action, not the result.



More related the topic. What people here is asking is that game developers creates content where player can do negative action, but get in end positive result. Issue is this.

Example:

Paragon player saves a man and later same man explode bomb and kills a few innocent people.
Renegade player kills the man and later there is no negative result because of it.

Renegade actions positive result isn't about getting rewards as positive outcome, but lack of negative outcome. (Is done)
Paragons action positive result is by getting positive reward from the actions. (is done)

Now what you ask is this.

Paragon action negative result is getting negative result from positive actions. (Can be done, punished from mistake)
Renegade action negative result is to get negative result from negative actions. (Can't be done in game, because players would be punish by been renegade all the time.)

Point been what you ask, doesn't affect renegade at all in game. It only change paragon situation.

Now there is posibility to think what some are saying as gameplay wise. That negative action get rewarded because result was postive. How ever, it seems little odd that players action get rewared as killing man, because the man was bad? Usually when action gets rewared because result, then actions result wans't even renegade, the result changed it to paragon. So, is this about making so that if action is renegade or the paragon, result determines the rewards?

Now is crystal clear, thanks. The examples of the cases were blurry as hell xD

[AngelicMachinery]

Lumikki wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Hehe Lumikki can you explain? xD

I was trying to teach difference between that action is self can be postive and negative too, without yet knowing what result of that action cause. That's why I only provided action, not the result.



More related the topic. What people here is asking is that game developers creates content where player can do negative action, but get in end positive result. Issue is this.

Example:

Paragon player saves a man and later same man explode bomb and kills a few innocent people.
Renegade player kills the man and later there is no negative result because of it.

Renegade actions positive result isn't about getting rewards as positive outcome, but lack of negative outcome. (Is done)
Paragons action positive result is by getting positive reward from the actions. (is done)

Now what you ask is this.

Paragon action negative result is getting negative result from positive actions. (Can be done, punished from mistake)
Renegade action negative result is to get negative result from negative actions. (Can't be done in game, because players would be punish by been renegade all the time.)

Point been what you ask, doesn't affect renegade at all in game. It only change paragon situation.

Now there is posibility to think what some are saying as gameplay wise. That negative action get rewarded because result was postive. How ever, it seems little odd that players action get rewared as killing man, because the man was bad? Usually when action gets rewared because result, then actions result wans't even renegade, the result changed it to paragon. So, is this about making so that if action is renegade or the paragon, the rewards are given based results to both types of actions? What means someone else has to thank you player for action in renegade case, because target of action is most cases dead.

In Mass effect you killed people and took their stuff constantly,  just saying.

Modifié par AngelicMachinery, 06 juillet 2011 - 11:43 .

[Imperator Augustus]

The problem with the renegade path is that it still doesn't know what it's trying to be. Paragon is very well defined: it's about being compassionate and heroic; essentially selflessness. Renegade on the other hand, can't decide if it is trying to be a self-reliant bad-ass or just a jerk. Renegade isn't supposed to be evil, it's just supposed to be a more realist path whereas paragon is more idealist. Although I mostly play paragon, I hope renegade players aren't screwed over for their choices.

[Homebound]

depending on your choices, i think both paragon and renegade lead to victory. its just renegade is victory vs reapers while paragon is victory vs reapers with no future tensions with citadel races.

[Homebound]

Imperator Augustus wrote...

The problem with the renegade path is that it still doesn't know what it's trying to be. Paragon is very well defined: it's about being compassionate and heroic; essentially selflessness. Renegade on the other hand, can't decide if it is trying to be a self-reliant bad-ass or just a jerk. Renegade isn't supposed to be evil, it's just supposed to be a more realist path whereas paragon is more idealist. Although I mostly play paragon, I hope renegade players aren't screwed over for their choices.

paragon = ideal
renegade = pragmatic

paragon: ideal = loving and tolerating the **** out of that reporter lady
renegade:pragmatic = shutting her up via punch to the face

both leads to her shutting up.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lumikki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It seems you've invented a new definition of positive and negative actions completely unique to yourself. Do define

I don't think so. I don't want to waste my time. I readed you previous posts.

Positive of negative action?

Case 1
You are police man and you see man in street and he fits description of known terrorist you where looking.
You shout for the man to stop and pull you gun, but he start running and you shoot the man to the dead?

Case 2
You go to friends birthday party and give you friend a gift (packet).

Neither, because your definition of positive and negative action is still meaningless until defined, as there are multiple, occassionally contradicting, definitions of positive and negative actions..

A positive action could be considered as any action that ultimately provides a superior course of events, while a negative action is any action that provides a worse course of events as best can be reasonably predicted.

OR 

A positive action could be considered an action that serves as a stimuli to cause a change, while a negative action is the lack of a stimuli to allow a changable situation to proceed. Any intervention is a positive action: refusing to intervene would be a negative action.

OR

Whatever your definition is.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 07 juillet 2011 - 12:40 .

[Arijharn]

I'm not sure if this is the point of the 'positive of a negative action' or not but I do recall a time where someone did just pull out a gun and shot someone who matched a description of a known terrorist. It turned out he was just a belgian waiter (or just a waiter? can't actually remember what nationality he was).

What a retarded overly simplistic explanation some people come up with.

Note; 'positive of negative action' doesn't mean you go all the way to the extreme of something. Is this not common sense?

I like diplomacy quite a bit, but I didn't think people were so naive as to think that organisations/countries came together just because they want to be together, other, more important factors come into play too.

[Arijharn]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

My beef with what Bioware has done extends beyond mere Paragon vs Renegade...

A game that's supposed to be about choices has been rigged to favor one option the most (Paragon)... every... single... time.

How are you supposed to really make a 'tough choice' or 'sacrifices' when you're aware of this? What's so 'tough' about always picking the blue button?

I'm inclined to agree with this. I mean, sometimes I choose Renegade because I think it's the better choice when I think about it. For example; you're going to kill 300k Batarian's, is it better to give them some hope, or is it 'nicer' to just instantly annihiliate them?

My thought was basically: It's impossible to spot evacuate 300k Batarian's within 2 or sohours from an entire system. The mass panic and hysteria that would happen on the world and the resulting bloodshed would probably cause far more chaos than instant obliteration. I don't like either option, but I doubt they could even start evacuation procedures because I'd doubt they'd even believe some lone crazy voice (aka: mine) coming from space in the first place.

What really 'gets under my bonnet' though is in comparison how much the game tries to massage my ego if I chose paragon, especially if I think the paragon is actually an unworkable solution. For example; the Collector Base, destroying it would put (in my estimation) so much more jumping through hoops to even try to combat the Reapers.

The only saving grace is that usually the Renegade's get the far better lines, but as much as I like the immediate zing as the other guy, it only gets you so far imo.

[Repearized Miranda]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
[sarcasm]I've always picked the red button which totally negates what I'm told to do apparently. Making those red choices were just as hard. If people would think for at least a split-second, instead of pushing buttons.[/sarcasm]

Neo didn't do this much complaining in regards to Morpheus' simple question, but he did think about the consequences somewhat and dealt with them accordingly. But according to this thread: Morpheus told him to pick said pill and he clearly did NOT!

I wonder what would be said if Neo came back whining to him having picked the wrong pill? "Your choice. Your consequence."

Heck, Saw (franchise) is a much better example. He never tells you what to do - he just tells you the consequence and to "Make your choice!" (or other suitable variants) Notice how whatever choice is made, there is a consequence - both good and bad. Save another or save yourself? Save another, means sacrificing yourself. To save yourself, means to sacrifice others. (First option: you live, they die. Second option: you die, they live) Two choices, four possible consequences.

You've missed the point... no one is against consequences... just favoritism to an exclusive choice. 

If you want the most positive result (most lives saved, most positive validation, most content with absolutely no drawbacks compared to the alternative choices), what good are the other choices if you know the blue one grants that result regardless of what the situation may be... regardless of any circumstances... and regadless of what's at stake?

Also realize that this complaint is happening after 2 of the planned 3 games...  Now or never if an influence is possible.

Simply put... the game should not wrap outcomes around Paragon choices exclusively... that's a punishment to making any other choice and removes the weight of the choice to a considerable degree.

No one's against consequences, but many act as if Paragons get the good consequences - or the game tells them to go paragon because of such consequence.

That isn't the case. Elnora is a good example.

If you let her go, she kills somebody. You did something noble, but something not so noble happened.
If you kill her, you thwart any chance of her killing anyone else. Your action was not noble, but the consequence of that action was.

But to your point about "favoritism." Wouldn't you say the Renegade is favored to because "I love it when Shepard is a jerk because I get to hear  'I'm gonna rough you up' all the time and see it happen!" In fact, I don't understand what the fuss is about because of this. Renegades don't mean being jerks, but being Paragon doesn't mean being an "idealistic kiss-ass" either. So, really both sides need work in regards to that argument.

Your favoritism argument goes hand-in-hand with my consequence argument because by saying "Paragon shouldn't = Win" means that such has only positive consequences. Blowing up the base = you erraticating Cerberus; Keepong it = "Anti-Cerberus" venom gets stronger and more poisonus. There's the inverse effect for each choice though.

It's only favoritism due to the misconceived notion about the "philosophy gauge" in either direction.

[Pharos]

As I said earlier, the consequences of our actions are probably going to be much clearer in ME3. Not because Bioware has thought Paragon = Win but because having the consequences occur in ME2 and your reactions to those consequences (and determining the consequences of those actions) would have vastly complicated the task of tying all those plot threads into ME3. Which would have inevitably cut content from the game.

To put it bluntly, ME2 was a bridging game more than anything; allowing us to make more decisions but only letting us see some of the consequences of, essentially, one of our choices: Saving to council or not. Otherwise its mostly just some news articles and missing (or not) npc's...

Would Renegade players be happier if they got a few e-mails from random people during ME2 saying 'thanks for potting so-and-so, they were a total ******'? Maybe...but there still would have been no more tangible consequences than that.

Modifié par Pharos, 07 juillet 2011 - 03:06 .

[Yvell]

Well, since the topic has been given examples of Renegade and Paragon choices, I may as well point this one out. *Note: I don't know if it has been discussed yet, but no matter.* When you are having your final confrontation with Dr. Amanda Kenson in the the Arrival, I made the personal choice of the renegade interrupt there. Shepard would've known there was no talking to someone who suffers from indoctrination in order to save them. Even with Saren, the only way to get past him would be with his death, either through his suicide or through battle. *Not counting the control by Sovereign in the end.* Or, at least, this is my opinion. And from my knowledge, even with the 'Paragon' choice of trying to talk her down, she nonetheless detonates and incapacitates Shepard. What does this mean? All I have done is indicate something that shows that Renegade and Paragon choices have, at least in this case, the same outcome. This is the point. No matter your overall choice was, be it Paragon or Renegade, it should end in some sort of victory.
To put it in simpler terms:
Paragon ≠ Always victory or loss
Renegade ≠ Always victory or loss
It should depend on how efficient you were (or would it be 'well you did'?) in getting allies and preparing for the final battle that will no doubt be in Mass Effect 3.
So there, there is my opinion. Good day sirs and madams. *tips hat*

Modifié par Yvell, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:43 .

[Arijharn]

I think allies will be important come ME3, but I don't think they'll be the whole equation in 'how well you do.' Technological superiority will play probably an equal part, with noise thrown in compared to how 'extreme' one way or another you play (aka; how Paragon in comparison to Renegade and vice versa).

Once upon a time I think they said they'll try to maximize the gameplay based on how pro-Paragon you are or how pro-Renegade, but I hope that design philosophy has since died, if only because I don't think anyone is realistically pro-Paragon to the exclusion of being completely anti-Renegade etc. At least, I'm not, and I would hope I'm not going to be in some way doubly penalized because I'm more 'centered.'

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Repearized Miranda wrote...
No one's against consequences, but many act as if Paragons get the good consequences - or the game tells them to go paragon because of such consequence.

They have thusfar.  There's never been a time where a Renegade choice saved more lives, got more content, or recieved more positive validation. 

That isn't the case. Elnora is a good example.

If you let her go, she kills somebody. You did something noble, but something not so noble happened.
If you kill her, you thwart any chance of her killing anyone else. Your action was not noble, but the consequence of that action was.

That volus was already dead by then and all mercs kill as part of their initiation... mercs kill by trade to begin with.  And letting known killers or would-be killers go is something Paragons never have a problem doing.  Additionally, letting them go never resulted in anything negative.  They either become allies, drunks, or news where nothing negative is mentioned.

But to your point about "favoritism." Wouldn't you say the Renegade is favored to because "I love it when Shepard is a jerk because I get to hear  'I'm gonna rough you up' all the time and see it happen!" In fact, I don't understand what the fuss is about because of this. Renegades don't mean being jerks, but being Paragon doesn't mean being an "idealistic kiss-ass" either. So, really both sides need work in regards to that argument.

Your favoritism argument goes hand-in-hand with my consequence argument because by saying "Paragon shouldn't = Win" means that such has only positive consequences. Blowing up the base = you erraticating Cerberus; Keepong it = "Anti-Cerberus" venom gets stronger and more poisonus. There's the inverse effect for each choice though.

It's only favoritism due to the misconceived notion about the "philosophy gauge" in either direction.

Favoritism comes from the result of choices, not attitudes.  If you picked the neutral choice, you don't get a result any different from if you picked the Renegade one.  Only the Paragon choice presents unique content. 

Even the fact that Cerberus is an enemy in Mass Effect 3 wraps around the Paragon choice.  If you destroy the base, Jacob tells Shepard that Cerberus would be after him.  Alternatives from the Paragon choices seem to be secondary affairs.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:05 .

[Ryzaki]

Pharos wrote...

As I said earlier, the consequences of our actions are probably going to be much clearer in ME3. Not because Bioware has thought Paragon = Win but because having the consequences occur in ME2 and your reactions to those consequences (and determining the consequences of those actions) would have vastly complicated the task of tying all those plot threads into ME3. Which would have inevitably cut content from the game.

To put it bluntly, ME2 was a bridging game more than anything; allowing us to make more decisions but only letting us see some of the consequences of, essentially, one of our choices: Saving to council or not. Otherwise its mostly just some news articles and missing (or not) npc's...

Would Renegade players be happier if they got a few e-mails from random people during ME2 saying 'thanks for potting so-and-so, they were a total ******'? Maybe...but there still would have been no more tangible consequences than that.

This pretty much. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

What Mass Effect 2 is can be argued at length, but the fact still remains that the results have been Paragon favoritism across the board.

If the trend continues, then the favoritism will continue.

Given what's been revealed officially thusfar, things aren't looking that good. The only thing that suggests there might be a reason to think about choices again (and what grants the most positive outcome) is Casey's quote about making unclear what's right or wrong.

The issue at hand is still the fact that the games have been wrapping themselves around one specific type of choice.  That seriously diminishes the point of making a real choice.

The game should not wrap outcomes around Paragon choices exclusively... that's a punishment to making any other choice and removes the weight of the choice to a considerable degree.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:08 .

[Repearized Miranda]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

*snip*

Favoritism comes from the result of choices, not attitudes.  If you picked the neutral choice, you don't get a result any different from if you picked the Renegade one.  Only the Paragon choice presents unique content. 

Even the fact that Cerberus is an enemy in Mass Effect 3 wraps around the Paragon choice.  If you destroy the base, Jacob tells Shepard that Cerberus would be after him.  Alternatives from the Paragon choices seem to be secondary affairs.

So? What if the base is kept? You mean to tell me that Cerberus is going to back up off me? Somehow, I find that hard to believe since they are the enemy. I find it hard to believe since they've been portrayed as villians since the first game, that we'll have tea & crumpets while discussing Reaper stuff, TIM isn't stupid and neither am I. I'm certain he'd stab me in the back at some point.

The collector base deal is pretty much the same Legion's as well as his is a no-win if you really think about it. The only difference is though Miranda and Jacob leave Cerberus, if you give the base to TIM, more than likely they'll leave you, too. If that were to happen, I could hear Ashley saying: "Now, you know how it feels!" 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you do realize that you can play the game more than once, right? I probably missed ot on a whole lot of stuff (given your logic), but I can find out what I missed later. IOW, both sides have their rewards. The idea that "you have to be good to win" is erroneous in a game like this. I was "bad" both games and still won. Whatever I missed out on is no big deal to me.

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Repearized Miranda wrote...
So? What if the base is kept? You mean to tell me that Cerberus is going to back up off me? Somehow, I find that hard to believe since they are the enemy. I find it hard to believe since they've been portrayed as villians since the first game, that we'll have tea & crumpets while discussing Reaper stuff, TIM isn't stupid and neither am I. I'm certain he'd stab me in the back at some point.

The collector base deal is pretty much the same Legion's as well as his is a no-win if you really think about it. The only difference is though Miranda and Jacob leave Cerberus, if you give the base to TIM, more than likely they'll leave you, too. If that were to happen, I could hear Ashley saying: "Now, you know how it feels!" 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you do realize that you can play the game more than once, right? I probably missed ot on a whole lot of stuff (given your logic), but I can find out what I missed later. IOW, both sides have their rewards. The idea that "you have to be good to win" is erroneous in a game like this. I was "bad" both games and still won. Whatever I missed out on is no big deal to me.

I don't mind Cerberus becoming a villain, I figured that would happen anyway as well... but keeping the base kept the working relationship between Shepard and Cerberus open at the end of ME2.  We don't see this change... the Paragon choice already revealed it would happen.  It's just another lack of payoff/content for the Renegade choice.

Miranda and Jacob don't leave Cerberus if you keep the base.

And past it all, I shouldn't "know" that the most positive outcome is going to appear by hitting the blue button every time (regardless of circumstance, stakes, etc.).  I understand what you're saying as well... but the roleplayer in me doesn't want a "most positive outcome" button... I want a "choice."

This is also a completely separate issue from replayability.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:55 .

[Repearized Miranda]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
So? What if the base is kept? You mean to tell me that Cerberus is going to back up off me? Somehow, I find that hard to believe since they are the enemy. I find it hard to believe since they've been portrayed as villians since the first game, that we'll have tea & crumpets while discussing Reaper stuff, TIM isn't stupid and neither am I. I'm certain he'd stab me in the back at some point.

The collector base deal is pretty much the same Legion's as well as his is a no-win if you really think about it. The only difference is though Miranda and Jacob leave Cerberus, if you give the base to TIM, more than likely they'll leave you, too. If that were to happen, I could hear Ashley saying: "Now, you know how it feels!" 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you do realize that you can play the game more than once, right? I probably missed ot on a whole lot of stuff (given your logic), but I can find out what I missed later. IOW, both sides have their rewards. The idea that "you have to be good to win" is erroneous in a game like this. I was "bad" both games and still won. Whatever I missed out on is no big deal to me.

I don't mind Cerberus becoming a villain, I figured that would happen anyway as well... but keeping the base kept the working relationship between Shepard and Cerberus open at the end of ME2.  We don't see this change... the Paragon choice already revealed it would happen.  It's just another lack of payoff for the Renegade choice.

And past it all, I shouldn't "know" that the most positive outcome is going to appear by hitting the blue button every time (regardless of circumstance, stakes, etc.).  I understand what you're saying as well... but the roleplayer in me doesn't want a "most positive outcome" button... I want a "choice."

So, I take it Renegade = "most negative choice" while neutral is ...

I want an apple
I don't care for neither
I want an orange

How is choosing the apple most positive than choosing the orange, other than "I like apples better" with the inverse also being true?

The neutral answer could mean: "I do like both, but I don't care for either at this particular time." This says that you could pick up either (or perhaps both) later.

As for the roleplaying, why don't people who wanna do that just flip-flop between such choices since "neutral = nothing" apparently. I wouldn't disagree as many don't pick such options. That would be very fustrating, but you'd get what you want apparently.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

replayability ...

How so? One wouls never get through an initial playthrough if one thought: "Oh, I hope I'm not playing wrong!" You shouldn't even be thinking that. I've done some things I'll probably regret, but I wanna get to the end of the game - if that means not winning it (full paragon), fine. Again, I guess Renegades are losers, but I haven't seen a "Can Renegade =/= Defeat?" thread yet. [sarcasm]Perhaps I should make one?[/sarcasm]

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:10 .

[KevShep]

I will sum it all up. The ends never justify the means.......ever!.....They never have! Sometimes the ends justify the means is a whole lot of fun and...THAT... is the payoff for renegades, so if you dont want to sacrifice anything in order to have fun then dont play as a renegade. And if you want to have fun as a renegade then dont complain when you have to sacrifice something to save the galaxy.

This should not even be paragon vs renegade....all decisions in Mass Effect should be disguised more and not divided into right and wrong or good and evil. it should be about what is logical/ethical. So stop with the whole rewarding renegades and punishing paragons.

Modifié par KevShep, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:20 .