1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yeah, I agree. That's why I was fine with destroying the relay even if it meant killing those 300k colonists.

Paragon Shepard is a sentimental moron though and would have saved them. Just as Paragon Shepard saved the Council even when trillions of lives were hanging in the balance.

Just like how Renegade Shepard is a delusional idiot when he thinks that giving the Collector base to a bunch of terrorists will benefit mankind?

It works both ways.

[Yezdigerd]

It's funny it never even occured to me that I would increase the risk of the reaper invasion by saving the council. Sneaking by DA and the citadel defence forces for Sovereign, only make sense if you can destroy it before the geth assist.
but why would you believe you could do that? If the Turian armada that is the galaxy's military superpower, and DA that is the mightest warship in councilspace couldn't take down Sovereign, why would a third rate human navy manage it?
So I thought it was a forgone conclusion that human navy had to cooperate with the citadel defence forces either way, Clearly losing the most powerful ship couldn't be an tactical advantage,
but since renegades Shepard is a human supremacist who hate aliens Shephard risks the galaxy to get rid of
the council. I mean they disagreed with him sometimes! so letting the mighty DA be destroyed was the standard renegade douchbaggery move.

and in hindsight that seems to be accurate assement.
The big problem with renegades isn't rewards but that instead of ruthless and cynical most options are stupid evil. They could benefit from better writing. If you just kill everything because you can, it's reasonable to expect less interaction.
If anyone suffers from lack of game rewards, it's the neutral options that never ever will net you any advantage.

[Lucifer_Cheney]

Luc0s wrote...

100% paragon is stupid.

100% renegade is also stupid.


The best and most realistic way of playing Mass Effect is to carefully consider each choice without meta-gaming and without paying attention to whether the specific choice is "paragon" or "renegade".

My "canon Shepard" is a mix of both paragon and renegade decisions and he feels like the most natural and coolest Shepard I've played so far.

You've made a sensible argument.  What are you, a wiseguy?<_<

[Nightdragon8]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just like how Renegade Shepard is a delusional idiot when he thinks that giving the Collector base to a bunch of terrorists will benefit mankind?

It works both ways.

No no, the difference is there are a lot of rational reasons to support studying the Collector base. There are no rational reasons to save the Council or the batarian colonists.

In any case, you are actually agreeing with me here, even if you are trying to do it in a snide way.

I'm glad I got through to you.

Let as this would "risking human lives" really have been better, I mean if they killed the big bad battleship, then they wouldn't be focing there fire on it, with brining in the allince while the ship was alive, there guns would still be firing on the ship plus with whatever firepower was left on the ship would still help out in the battle.

Its a question of battle tactics, with brining the human fleet in, you save the lives and hardware for the tradeoff of losing a few ships yourself. You can possibly save more ships with more targets out there and killing hte bad guys faster than waiting around until all the other fleet is.

So in reality it was more of a stragic move. At least in my opionon.

[marshalleck]

Yezdigerd wrote...

 Clearly losing the most powerful ship couldn't be an tactical advantage,

Clearly you don't understand the tactical value of a dreadnought in the ME milieu. Hint: the Destiny Ascension was already pretty much useless even before getting swarmed by geth. Dreadnoughts don't engage in close range. They sit back many kilometers from the fighting and hammer away at other dreadnoughts with their main gun.

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No no, the difference is there are a lot of rational reasons to support studying the Collector base. There are no rational reasons to save the Council or the batarian colonists.

In any case, you are actually agreeing with me here, even if you are trying to do it in a snide way.

I'm glad I got through to you.

By that logic, there's no reason to save Earth either, since it's one of the first planets to fall.  

[Arijharn]

First of all; I don't think the Destiny Ascension scenario is quite the same as Arrival. I for instance, can reason that by allowing the DA to be destroyed effectively accomplishes the Reaper's 'decapitating strike' strategy for them. Also; at that time, we learnt from Vigil that even Reapers are susceptible to amassed firepower from a fleet.

I also think it's safe to assume that other reinforcements from Turian Peacekeeping fleets etc, will attempt to hook up with elements of the 5th at some point at best, or at worst fall into blockade formation to prevent Geth reinforcements around the Mass Relay. 

We know as Commander Shephard though that Sovereign is dependant upon the actions of Saren (thus the whole story of ME1) thus any actions Shephard can do to buy time is therefore a battle of attrition that Sovereign is losing.

Even if the worst case scenario occurs and that Sovereign is victorious, then the cycle is half broken anyway due to Sovereign's failure to decapitate the leaders of the Council and causing a succession crisis in addition to general confusion. 

Someone With Mass wrote...
Just like how Renegade Shepard is a delusional idiot when he thinks that giving the Collector base to a bunch of terrorists will benefit mankind?

It works both ways.

Not quite; see what I think you fail to grasp is after the Reaper war, everyone would be at a near technological parity, which means Cerberus/humanity wouldn't be any more of a threat in the future than what they are now. 

As for Cerberus workign for the Reapers; I have my own theories as to why, but I truly doubt it would be Cerberus just becoming another implementation of Saren. Why do I doubt? Because I doubt they'd 'repeat themselves so soon.'

[Yezdigerd]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The DA and Citadel fleet weren't destroyed by Sovereign, they were overwhelmed by the geth. Sovereign didn't even engage them, simply flying right passed.

Was some time ago but I distinctly  recall the Turian ships firing on Sovereign, while it blows through their lines destroying one of their battleships in the process.

Saving the DA accomplishes nothing because you lose ships, the DA still can't fight, and any nearby Council ships will stay near it to protect it.

Why would you assume the DA cannot fight? All they say is that their kinetic barriers are damaged. and really you will lose those ships either way, or do you believe  the geth wouldn't move in supporting Sovereign if it required it? They are engaging the citadel defence forces because those otherwise would interfere with S doing it's thing.
The objective of the Geth fleet is to protect Sovereign not destroy the council.

If you assist your allies you should obviously lose less ships then if you let them be defeated in detail. Losing ships only make sense if you believe the citadel defence forces wouldn't  join the fight against Sovereign for some reason.

Clearly you don't understand the tactical value of a dreadnought in the ME milieu. Hint: the Destiny Ascension was already pretty much useless even before getting swarmed by geth. Dreadnoughts don't engage in close range. They sit back many kilometers from the fighting and hammer away at other dreadnoughts with their main gun.

Quite possibly, I made my decision from in game knowledge not reading the mass effect wiki. The game made big deal about how powerful the DA was. I assumed it could actually fight... especially other big ships.

In any case not seen anyone explain why the human navy would manage to bruteforce S* down, when the military heavyhitters couldn't.

[Someone With Mass]

Arijharn wrote...
Not quite; see what I think you fail to grasp is after the Reaper war, everyone would be at a near technological parity, which means Cerberus/humanity wouldn't be any more of a threat in the future than what they are now. 

Considering how badly past Cerberus experiments backfired, I'd rather not risk it. Especially when Cerberus is indoctrinated. It'd be like letting a bunch of kids play with the control panel to a nuclear missile silo.

[DaringMoosejaw]

I see the choice of focusing on Sovereign or saving the council, as it relates to actually killing Sovereign, as pointless anyway. Don't the arms of the station only open AFTER you save the council/don't save the council? What's the point of saying 'Focus on Sovereign' if you can't get inside until the arms open, other than trying to preserve your forces? The Ascension should've helped out afterward to make both options make sense.

[Arijharn]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Considering how badly past Cerberus experiments backfired, I'd rather not risk it. Especially when Cerberus is indoctrinated. It'd be like letting a bunch of kids play with the control panel to a nuclear missile silo.

Some may 'backfire' but that doesn't mean they weren't successful. Also consider the nature of Cerberus; it's supposed to be a clandestine black ops organisation. It would be a pretty crap one if everyone knew about their successes. As it is; only a few people know about their failures.

Cerberus is like the boogeyman. The exception is that people know (or think they know) that Cerberus exists.

Saphra Deden wrote...
If Sovereign wins then the relay network goes down. Boom. There is your decapitating strike.

Yes and no. It's only if Saren wins that the relay goes down. If you remember; Sovereign was a giant sitting duck (read; Grunt! har har) as it was perched on the Council tower.

There's a lot of assumptions on either side I guess about the relative merits of both decisions. I see saving the DA as not such a no brainer as saving the CB (which I think is; do it if you want to help ensure successfully repelling the Reapers because it gives you a better chance. Worry about Cerberus after the Reapers).

The Fleet was instrumental in distracting and eventually destroying Sovereign; but only because of Cmdr. Shephard's actions. It's partly why Sovereign needed someone like Saren too; because it needed a proxy avatar to do his bidding.

It also presupposes that the Council and the DA couldn't exfiltrate the area before Sovereign goes down and consolidate their forces somewhere, but I admit its effectiveness is greatly reduced on how much of the relay network is shut down (i.e., is it only the larger mass relays, or is it the smaller 'omni-directional' relay's, or is it both?).

[Nightdragon8]

Honestly I don't see why the Reapers just don't make a run for the Citidel I mean, if it can control all the mass relays then it wont matter. It would be the same as there original plan. Shut down all relays, and take each planet one by one.

[robarcool]

The reapers can't run to the citadel as they don't have an insider like Saren to open the Citadel mass relay.

[Grunk]

I think the issue that people are talking around (or the word, I should say) is feedback. Screw all this stuff about story and everything; Paragons get almost entirely positive feedback in terms of the narrative by taking the Blue position, whereas Renegades don't get anything comparable.

I remember a time in DA2 where I did what would in ME be a Renegade action and killed this serial killer instead of turning him in to the authorities because he killed the elves and the authoritative sentiment was "screw the knife-ears." The guy in authority was mad, but the elves were like AWESOME MAN THANKS. That's what I'd like to get in ME sometimes for my Renegade choices: "Yeah, screw the Rachni, they're too dangerous to let live. Good job, Shep." Or at least let me talk to those who disagree and persuade them to see my point of view or something. As things stand now, in terms of narrative feedback to the player, Paragons save all the lives and get all the approbation. I would like to see more characters split so that they often show reproach for making the Blue/Paragon choice and vice-versa. I'd also like some NPCs to be like "Good job! I'm glad you killed the SoBs!" or something.

Actually, what I would personally like is for people to remember the ways in which I screwed them over or, if I killed them, to have a bunch of people who were connected for that person come for my head. I'm fine with Paragons being Galaxy's Most Beloved; I would like to be Galaxy's Most Wanted. As things stand currently, Renegades incur more negativity in narrative feedback (more civvies die and stuff) but get none of the approbation that goes towards Paragons. Worse, the decisions also don't lead to pure Renegades getting content, as others have said (less NPCs show up, etc). As I said just a few sentences ago, I'm fine if those NPCs don't show, but at least have others come and threaten me, give some smack-talk, and swear blood vengeance or something. As it is, it's like Renegade Shepard is an eraser, effacing NPCs, their presences and influences (in terms of narrative) entirely from the narrative. That kinda sucks.

That being said, I usually lean Renegade and make a lot of Paragon choices, mainly because playing a straight Paragon makes me feel kinda wussy, and also I like my Shepard to be hardcore as all hell. It's a little better playing a Paragon in ME2, but not by much. I just want my Renegade path of violence, executions, and extortion to mean as much in the narrative as the Paragon path of kittens, puppy dogs, and lollipops.

[Grunk]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Grunk wrote...

I think the issue that people are talking around (or the word, I should say) is feedback. Screw all this stuff about story and everything; Paragons get almost entirely positive feedback in terms of the narrative by taking the Blue position, whereas Renegades don't get anything comparable.

Well, some posters are talking about that. I'm not. I don't care so much how the galaxy views Shepard. Granted some people should dislike Paragon Shepard and like Renegade Shepard, that is a minor issue. For me the issue is content. Often a Renegade decision winds up having no actual effect on the game in the future. No character to meet, no additional dialogue. In many cases a Renegade import to ME2 is identical to a non-imported game. Where's the fun in that?

Even Paragon decisions working out for the best all the time is secondary to that in my opinion.

Well what I was saying there was that often, the narrative feedback plays out in some form of content. Save the Rachni? Rachni chick shows up and says thanks. Kill the Rachni? Maybe in ME2 some queen egg got out, grew up some, mind controlled someone to tell Shepard it's coming to stick pincers up your backside and snip off your tongue. As opposed to the current situation, in which there's nothing. My personal take is that I would like to get this content/narrative feedback in terms of bloody-minded revenge since Renegade Shepard not only kills, s/he also punks the hell out of people, while Paragon Shep generally doesn't.


I was kinda trying to just boil it down to stuff. Some folks don't like that Paragon stuff always works whereas Renegade stuff doesn't, but I think most hardcore Renegade players wouldn't care if they were just receiving the same amount of narrative feedback that Paragon players get, like you were saying. So I'm really just thinking about the form that it would take.