1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Barquiel wrote...

The Destiny Ascension is a humans vs aliens decision. Arrival not.

It´s not the same.

"This is bigger than humanity, Sovereign is a threat to every species in the galaxy."

It's not a human vs alien decision.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:01 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Don't Renegades always win too? The most consequences a Renegade Exclusive player has faced is a few racist aliens on the Citadel. I never really understood this Persecution Complex the more vocal Renegade Players have developed.

It's one thing to say you'd like for a few Paragon Decisions have some negative side effects, but it's entirely different to accuse Devs of having favortism (which is childish).

[Nerevar-as]

Way I saw it, he needed Saren to get and keep control. Even if it wasn´t the DA was in the way. If it had been on the other side of the Citadel I might have chosen to concetrate on Sovie.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Don't Renegades always win too? The most consequences a Renegade Exclusive player has faced is a few racist aliens on the Citadel. I never really understood this Persecution Complex the more vocal Renegade Players have developed.

It's one thing to say you'd like for a few Paragon Decisions have some negative side effects, but it's entirely different to accuse Devs of having favortism (which is childish).

Favoritism isn't childish when that's exactly what they've been doing... the games speak for themselves.

If you read the arguements you'd know where this is coming from.  I'm not even a Renegade and I'm making this complaint.

The OP should change his title, because "victory" is not what he was talking about. 

[Nerevar-as]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Don't Renegades always win too? The most consequences a Renegade Exclusive player has faced is a few racist aliens on the Citadel. I never really understood this Persecution Complex the more vocal Renegade Players have developed.

It's one thing to say you'd like for a few Paragon Decisions have some negative side effects, but it's entirely different to accuse Devs of having favortism (which is childish).

Behaving like a jerk (at best) and expect to be liked is too much to ask. It´s not as if Renegades lost much more than a handful of thank you mails. I hope in ME3 things balance out, ie saving the Rachni meaning harder battles because of the husks but also positive content; or with the Collecor Base, getting advantages once you deal with Cerberus.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:06 .

[DiegoProgMetal]

Based on what Casey said, I believe any path you choose (paragon/renegade) may lead you to victory. There will be differences on how you'll get there. Maybe being a renegade will turn Shepard into some kind of tirant, enslaving some races or all races. Maybe he'll just let planet Earth or the new Normandy with it's entire crew to be destroyed if it means he can destroy the Reapers in the process... Who knows...

[Smeelia]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

I experienced the same thing, imo I just wanted to "option" to push the button, I wouldn't mind it being the ONLY option. But for me I think it would have been better if the player had to press the button themsleves because honestly at that point I felt disconnected from Shep. And yes I would have pushed the button. (90% paragon player) (maybe with one last chance at trying to contact the colony but I would have still done it.

That could work, even if it's the only option some players might hesitate and that could add to the tension (although it wouldn't work for everyone, some people would complain that they have to press a button to continue).

Nightdragon8 wrote...

if you think about it, really a paragon Spectre is not a very good one, Renegade is accutly more "Spectrish" Tho I think with Paragon they are making it more of a James Bond sort of thing.

You could also argue the opposite really, just because you can do things above the law doesn't mean you have to.  I think the C-Sec captain in the first game says something like that (or Shepard says it to him)... Maybe I'm thinking of a Garrrus conversation.  Anyway, I suppose that's the whole idea of the game really (choosing what kind of person you want Shepard to be) and it's good when both options make sense (which they do, for the most part).

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The issue is favoritism... that the games wrap their consequences around one type of choice... and have done so exclusively every time.

All choices get consequences.  There are a few choices that get some extra content down the line but it's not like Renegade choices are the only ones that miss out (poor neutrals).  Changing Paragon outcomes wouldn't improve the situation, giving extra/better content for the choices that currently get none would.

As for the idea that it's "favouritism", I suspect that negligence is far more likely for the flaws that there are.  It's not likely that they wrote the story a particular way just to annoy particular people. With ME1 no one had yet played and "groups" hadn't been established to be "favoured", while ME2 simply follows the same theme and if people have chosen to be in a group that doesn't like it then that's their choice.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Even when game characters initially favor a Renegade choice, the Paragon decision yields no negative feedback from them... on the contrary, they get unanimous and unrealitic support and praise while the Renegade gets disagreement and scorn. And that just doesn't make sense.

This doesn't actually happen with one possible exception that I'll come back to.  There are plenty of occasions where teammates give feedback on a situation and they generally go along with whatever you decide (in particular, most ME1 decisions include feedback).  The one possible exception is the Collector Base scandal and companions don't actually disagree with the decision you made (keeping the base), just with the one you didn't make (handing it over to Cerberus).  Even then, most of them are more concerned about avoiding certain uses of the technology (Legion) or simply worried that Cerberus might do things wrong or exploit the base for their own gain (which is a fair concern).  I don't think anyone that encouraged keeping the base actually says you were wrong to keep it when you do.  So we're left with one example that isn't particularly strong.

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:12 .

[Barquiel]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

The Destiny Ascension is a humans vs aliens decision. Arrival not.

It´s not the same.

"This is bigger than humanity, Sovereign is a threat to every species in the galaxy."

It's not a human vs alien decision.

It is a human vs alien decision.

It is presented as a human vs alien decision (You'd sacrifice human lives to save the council? What have they ever done for your kind?)...and the outcome (multi-racial council vs human tyranny) reflects that.

[Smeelia]

Barquiel wrote...

It is presented as a human vs alien decision (You'd sacrifice human lives to save the council? What have they ever done for your kind?)...and the outcome (multi-racial council vs human tyranny) reflects that.

It's interesting that (as far as I remember) the possibility of taking over the council isn't even mentioned prior to the decision.  That humanity takes charge is just a lucky little bonus side effect of the decision (maybe you could even call it a "positive outcome").

[GodWood]

Barquiel wrote...
It is a human vs alien decision.
It is presented as a human vs alien decision (You'd sacrifice human lives to save the council? What have they ever done for your kind?)...and the outcome (multi-racial council vs human tyranny) reflects that.

Actually the dialogue plays out like this:

Companion 1: You'd sacrifice human lives to save the Council? What have they ever done for your kind?
Companion 2: This is bigger than humanity! Sovereign's a threat to every organic species in the galaxy.
Companion 1: That's why you can't throw away reinforcements trying to save the Council. Hold them back until the Citadel arms open up and the human fleet can go after Sovereign.

Modifié par GodWood, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:20 .

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You see? This is what I was talking about. You are so spot on I'm tempted to think you're a fake. I know better though.

How about this for a difference, in Arrival you only have one asteroid (and thus one shot) while in ME1 you have a whole fleet (who aren't all able to attack Sovereign at once and still have to deal with the Geth anyway).  At least when you attack earlier the Geth have more targets to deal with, while attacking later gives them a better chance to fight back.  Plenty of tactical considerations in ME1, not so many in Arrival.

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:32 .

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

One fleet is one shot at Sovereign. One shot at the Reapers.

It's the same situation.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point for me.

To clarify, both choices in ME1 have a chance of success (and indeed, both succeed) while in Arrival only one choice can work (the other is simply "do nothing" anyway).

If you're going to be arrogant you should at least try to be right.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

How do you know the alternative in Arrival can't work?

Actually I was thinking of mentioning that (I know, you're horrified).  I suppose you could make a case, possibly based on the idea that the "vision" from Object Rho is fake or that Shepard is indoctrinated by it.  Something along those lines perhaps.  Still, the meta-gaming elements are problematic (whereas in ME1 they prove the viability of the choice), there might be a case that could get around that but I can't think of it at the moment.

Anyway, if the alternative in Arrival could work that doesn't prove the choice in ME1 has an "obvious" answer.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Anyway, I'm not arrogant, you're just dimwitted.

Har har, most amusing.

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:47 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

To clarify, both choices in ME1 have a chance of success (and indeed, both succeed) while in Arrival only one choice can work (the other is simply "do nothing" anyway).

How do you know the alternative in Arrival can't work?

Anyway, I'm not arrogant, you're just dimwitted.

Because this happens if you decide to do nothing.

It's a part of the main story, which BioWare apparently wants to take their own way.

[JamieCOTC]

Just finished my renegade playthrough late last night. Loved it.  Gave TIM the base. Can't wait until ME3 when my Shep pries the Collector base data from TIM's cold dead hands. 

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why do you people try so goddamn hard to miss the point? Do you do this deliberately to ****** me off, or are you really that dumb?

The developers wanted things to go a certain, way, no kidding. I can see that. THAT. IS. NOT. THE. POINT!

What makes SHEPARD think that destroying the relay is the only way? Why did Shepard feel lives must be sacrificed this time but not at the Battle of the Citadel?

If Shepard was willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the Destiny Ascension then he should be willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the colonists.

He could make a corny Paragon-Speech about not becoming the monsters or some crap. He could then flee the system and rally the galaxy to fight. It would all be for naught of-course, but how could Shepard know that? It would have been in character.

Of-course every Paragon dork with the inclination to speak their mind will defend Bioware's choice here because part of playing Paragon seems to be playing the role of Bioware fanboy or girl.

The only reason you agree the Paragon route wasn't an option here is because you weren't given the choice to take it and arguing otherwise would mean saying something bad about the company.

Refusing to destroy the relay should have been an option, even if it meant a game-over.

And you're telling people that they're stupid...

That option would just go against everything Shepard fought for and be so OOC, even for him/her.

So stop doing that pathetic minority opinion routine and deal with it.

[JayhartRIC]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Because this happens if you decide to do nothing.

It's a part of the main story, which BioWare apparently wants to take their own way.

Why do you people try so goddamn hard to miss the point? Do you do this deliberately to ****** me off, or are you really that dumb?

The developers wanted things to go a certain, way, no kidding. I can see that. THAT. IS. NOT. THE. POINT!

What makes SHEPARD think that destroying the relay is the only way? Why did Shepard feel lives must be sacrificed this time but not at the Battle of the Citadel?

If Shepard was willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the Destiny Ascension then he should be willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the colonists.

He could make a corny Paragon-Speech about not becoming the monsters or some crap. He could then flee the system and rally the galaxy to fight. It would all be for naught of-course, but how could Shepard know that? It would have been in character.

Of-course every Paragon dork with the inclination to speak their mind will defend Bioware's choice here because part of playing Paragon seems to be playing the role of Bioware fanboy or girl.

The only reason you agree the Paragon route wasn't an option here is because you weren't given the choice to take it and arguing otherwise would mean saying something bad about the company.

Refusing to destroy the relay should have been an option, even if it meant a game-over.

It is...

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

What makes SHEPARD think that destroying the relay is the only way? Why did Shepard feel lives must be sacrificed this time but not at the Battle of the Citadel?

It could have had something to do with the Object Rho vision, combined with the big clock counting down a very short time till the Reapers arrive.

As for the battle of the citadel, you've been given a couple of reasons for the Paragon decision already.

Interesting that you suggest that others are ignoring your point when you're ignoring theirs, you inability to realise that the decisions really are different doesn't prove they're the same.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Refusing to destroy the relay should have been an option, even if it meant a game-over.

There are plenty of times in the game (in addition to Arrival) where Shepard isn't given certain choices that should really be possible.  You can't call for Balak to be tracked/caught by the Normandy, you don't get to choose who gets the collector base if you keep it, you don't get a choice with Elnora (if you miss the interrupt) and so on.  It's not inconsistent to give you no choice for a plot-essential decision.

Besides, you can choose not to destroy the relay and you do get a game over for it.  Okay, you can't choose to not destroy it but then escape but as I said you don't always get every available option offered to you.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

How so?

If you're that dense, there's really no point in explaining why.

[Nightdragon8]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Because this happens if you decide to do nothing.

It's a part of the main story, which BioWare apparently wants to take their own way.

Why do you people try so goddamn hard to miss the point? Do you do this deliberately to ****** me off, or are you really that dumb?

The developers wanted things to go a certain, way, no kidding. I can see that. THAT. IS. NOT. THE. POINT!

What makes SHEPARD think that destroying the relay is the only way? Why did Shepard feel lives must be sacrificed this time but not at the Battle of the Citadel?

If Shepard was willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the Destiny Ascension then he should be willing to gamble with the galaxy to save the colonists.

He could make a corny Paragon-Speech about not becoming the monsters or some crap. He could then flee the system and rally the galaxy to fight. It would all be for naught of-course, but how could Shepard know that? It would have been in character.

Of-course every Paragon dork with the inclination to speak their mind will defend Bioware's choice here because part of playing Paragon seems to be playing the role of Bioware fanboy or girl.

The only reason you agree the Paragon route wasn't an option here is because you weren't given the choice to take it and arguing otherwise would mean saying something bad about the company.

Refusing to destroy the relay should have been an option, even if it meant a game-over.

The REASON was because they needed more time to prepare to build up ships train get any new tech they can to fight against such an enamy. Thats the reason, Or did you miss teh fact that "time" was the major theme of Arival. Also that is a real ending. Not some fan based thing.

IMO would could SHep have done, so far you haven't really said anything to say what Shep could have done. He was too busy running aroudn to reach the Attena to contact the population, And by the time you get there, after preventing the core from exploding, it was already too late.

Edit: I have to say this IMO you are just ranting to rant at this point, don't like the fact that "Paragons" didn't get a choice you just wanted ammo to say "Haha your Paragon had to do something Renegade so thus Renegade is better" Just so you can win a bet with your friends or something..

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 09 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .