1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Ryzaki wrote...

Riiight. Hackett totally needs to make **** up. >_>

Don't you know? Some people need to grasp at as many straws as possible to defend a Renegade decision, because Paragon is not good enough in their eyes.

[Ryzaki]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Riiight. Hackett totally needs to make **** up. >_>

Yes. You see in my game the DA died right around the time Sovereign became vulnerable to attack. Therefore I know for a fact the DA contributed nothing to the battle other than being a nice distraction.

So Hackett was just talking about the battle as a whole.

Right because he said this in your game? 

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yes. You see in my game the DA died right around the time Sovereign became vulnerable to attack. Therefore I know for a fact the DA contributed nothing to the battle other than being a nice distraction.

So Hackett was just talking about the battle as a whole.

Okay, your game =/= everyone's game, so you can take that biased "fact" and shove it.

[TobyHasEyes]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

<_<

 The point I was making is that no military man would support the idea of sending your forces to help allies engaged with battle, when apart from them there is someone setting up a world-ending explosive

 In other words they would focus on taking him out with concentrated fire

But the puppies... <_<



Seriously though, I can see what you mean with the scenario you mention, but before the force multiplier provided by the appearance of the Alliance Fleet can focus on the intended target, Shepard needs to unlock communication through the Comm Buoys, the Mass Relay and Citadel Arms so there is time to either hold the Alliance back or send them in early to assist against the Geth.

 Seriously though, I forgot to mention that he had to press some buttons as well, and that he would have to open his mouth to make commands, but I think for what I lacked in detail I did describe the choice before Shepard as

  - Have Alliance Fleet save the Council by destroying Geth ships before attacking Sovereign, or

 - Have Alliance Fleet focus on Sovereign

 And I was saying that force mulitpliers and united fronts don't matter that much when one target is such a high and immediate priority as Sovereign was

[Ryzaki]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Right because he said this in your game? 

Yes, he says that line regardless of the DA's status. So he clearly isn't refering to the DA's firepower.

So...you checked? Or did you just assume based off one youtube vid where you don't know the players decisions? 

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Right because he said this in your game? 

Yes, he says that line regardless of the DA's status. So he clearly isn't refering to the DA's firepower.

It's just BioWare's way of showing that they don't care if you destroyed the DA.

[nhsk]

To try to answer the orignal question I think the common misconception about Paragon / Renegade is the choice of colours BW went with.

Blue is associated with good.
Red is associated with evil.

I think it gets into many peoples minds that "blue" or "good" should win a major victory all the time.

I wonder if the colours would have been reversed if it was a chinese game.

Modifié par nhsk, 09 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

Just checked my Renegade playthrough (save right at the end of Arrival), I can confirm he does say the Destiny Ascension was needed for Sovereign even if it blew up. His mention is more that it was necessary for the battle, I guess.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Seboist]

nhsk wrote...

To try to answer the question I think the common misconception about Paragon / Renegade is the choice of colours BW went with.

Blue is associated with good.
Red is associated with evil.

I think it gets into many peoples minds that "blue" or "good" should win a major victory all the time.

I wonder if the colours would have been reversed if it was a chinese game.

I try to ignore the BS morality system and It's colors as much as I can and do whatever fits the character of the Shepard I'm playing as but it doesn't help that I'm forced to worry about having enough magic points to be able do a decision I want to do.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well if the DA wasn't needed in my game then it wasn't needed in yours either.

Yeah, I bet those upgrades I bought for the suicide mission weren't important either. Oh, wait. You want people to die for some unnecessary and overdramatic effect, and I don't.

Point is, your game isn't comparable to everyone else's, since you destroyed the DA before it had a chance to help.

[Ryzaki]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just checked my Renegade playthrough (save right at the end of Arrival), I can confirm he does say the Destiny Ascension was needed for Sovereign even if it blew up. His mention is more that it was necessary for the battle, I guess.

 

Huh. Odd that. I'll just HC it as the DA helping out before and after it was damaged I always save the council anway. The "ah yes 'reapers'." in ME3 is too much to resist.  I can't wait for the "I told you so!" 

Thanks for checking Dave.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juillet 2011 - 09:55 .

[Lumikki]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Of course if you play renegade you gonna have harder time, it's nature been renegade. You "kill" all you allies, while paragon gathers them as friend.

er, no that's not how renegades work: you kill all the enemies, and those who might become enemies, yes, but you don't necessarily kill any allies. the lack of leaving enemies alive is the biggest boon: paragons, due to the lack of said foresight should have an equally - but different - tough time of it.

Hehe, that's the point, how you look situations. Renegade sees them as potential enemies and kills them. Paragons seens them as potential ally's and let them live.

Example Rachni Queen. It can bite paragons ass later or not.

[Praetor Knight]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Seriously though, I forgot to mention that he had to press some buttons as well, and that he would have to open his mouth to make commands, but I think for what I lacked in detail I did describe the choice before Shepard as

  - Have Alliance Fleet save the Council by destroying Geth ships before attacking Sovereign, or

 - Have Alliance Fleet focus on Sovereign

 And I was saying that force mulitpliers and united fronts don't matter that much when one target is such a high and immediate priority as Sovereign was

And I would assume that a strategic mind would not want waste the opportunity to maximize efficiency and take out secondary targets in route to a primary target where the window of opportunity to strike hasn't opened yet.


Also, with the idea of multiplying force, if Geth forces are destroyed by Alliance ships that are entering the fray (a la the cavalry riding in) the surviving Citadel ships should then be able to reapply their focus on other Geth and then to Sovereign, so that Shepard and Hackett would then have a greater force to bring to bear against Sovereign once the arms are open.

[Barquiel]

Ryzaki wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Just checked my Renegade playthrough (save right at the end of Arrival), I can confirm he does say the Destiny Ascension was needed for Sovereign even if it blew up. His mention is more that it was necessary for the battle, I guess.

 

Huh. Odd that. I'll just HC it as the DA helping out before and after it was damaged I always save the council anway. The "ah yes 'reapers'." in ME3 is too much to resist.  I can't wait for the "I told you so!" 

Thanks for checking Dave.  

ok, I didn't know that.

But there is certainly no evidence that the DA didn't assist the alliance fleet.

[TobyHasEyes]

Seboist wrote...

nhsk wrote...

To try to answer the question I think the common misconception about Paragon / Renegade is the choice of colours BW went with.

Blue is associated with good.
Red is associated with evil.

I think it gets into many peoples minds that "blue" or "good" should win a major victory all the time.

I wonder if the colours would have been reversed if it was a chinese game.

I try to ignore the BS morality system and It's colors as much as I can and do whatever fits the character of the Shepard I'm playing as but it doesn't help that I'm forced to worry about having enough magic points to be able do a decision I want to do.

 That is a pain, hence am pleased from some screens we've seen that there is at least some reason to a persuasion/intimidate point-based level, rather than diplomatic ability being linked to your morality

 That way my diplomatic Shepard can put all my levelling up points into being good at whatever-passes-for-Persuasion-here and I'll just rely on my own combat skills in get through the combat

[nhsk]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Really? I would say red associated with danger and aggression. Blue is associated more with serenity.

Green and say Orange / Yellow would have done that job as well.

It is just that every FPS game usually depicts the opposing team as "red" and you are "blue"
In the cold war it was really "blue vs. red" or "NATO (blue...) versus the evil empire as Reagan said it, USSR (red).

It is deep in our western world mentality that red is evil.

And yes it's a BS morality system. I often find myself caught in the colours and I have personally have a problem playing a renegade as I associate renegade with evil, it worked much better for me in DA:O being renegade.

Edit: quotation (removed beginning of pyramid)

Modifié par nhsk, 09 juillet 2011 - 10:04 .

[Ryzaki]

Barquiel wrote...
ok, I didn't know that.

But there is certainly no evidence that the DA didn't assist the alliance fleet.

Nope. There wasn't. 

I usually max my paragon/renegade bars and then pick the choices that make sense for my Shepard. I see both full paragon and full renegade as pretty stupid. They're just stupid in different ways. 

[TobyHasEyes]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Seriously though, I forgot to mention that he had to press some buttons as well, and that he would have to open his mouth to make commands, but I think for what I lacked in detail I did describe the choice before Shepard as

  - Have Alliance Fleet save the Council by destroying Geth ships before attacking Sovereign, or

 - Have Alliance Fleet focus on Sovereign

 And I was saying that force mulitpliers and united fronts don't matter that much when one target is such a high and immediate priority as Sovereign was

And I would assume that a strategic mind would not want waste the opportunity to maximize efficiency and take out secondary targets in route to a primary target where the window of opportunity to strike hasn't opened yet.


Also, with the idea of multiplying force, if Geth forces are destroyed by Alliance ships that are entering the fray (a la the cavalry riding in) the surviving Citadel ships should then be able to reapply their focus on other Geth and then to Sovereign, so that Shepard and Hackett would then have a greater force to bring to bear against Sovereign once the arms are open.

 .. all of which are good thoughts, but have to be secondary considerations when the big news about the battle is that over there the world-destroying weapon could be set off (the Reapers summoned) ANY SECOND

 Your thoughts wouldn't be on how to get the bigger force over to that vital point, but on how to get your already good force over to that vital point

 Obviously the two fail options could be 
       - arriving with a larger united force to stop Sovereign, but being too late, or
       - losing all of your smaller (but not small)  force in fighting Sovereign, and having nobody else to continue trying to stop Sovereign

 What I am saying is that when every second may count, the first option would be bigger risk