1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Favoritism?

You do realize renegades constantly get easier battles right? (which is complete bull).

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?

A cutscene where some character tells Shepard they'll help him. Whoohooo? 

I don't remember that making a battle easier...  Whohwha?

[ThePwener]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?  You still kill them.

Unbelivable.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

ThePwener wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?  You still kill them.

Unbelivable.

Indeed.

[Ryzaki]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Favoritism?

You do realize renegades constantly get easier battles right? (which is complete bull).

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?

A cutscene where some character tells Shepard they'll help him. Whoohooo? 

I don't remember that making a battle easier...  Whohwha?

 

Let me use small words. 

I can use the same "whoo hoo?" arguement for your 'ZOMG WHY DO PARAGONS GET CAMEOS!!!!" tidbit. 

[Markinator_123]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Favoritism?

You do realize renegades constantly get easier battles right? (which is complete bull).

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?

A cutscene where some character tells Shepard they'll help him. Whoohooo? 

Fact is both sides get advantages over the other. If you want to belittle my grudges I can do the same. 

Interesting thing about Mass Effect you take Paragon actions and you can take Renegade actions. Just use the renegade interrupts and kill those pieces of crap.

[HogarthHughes 3]

Medhia Nox wrote...

And nobody has stated what they're losing as a Renegade.

Friends? Is that it - a bunch of supposed badasses want to have friends too?

===

@HogarthHughes - I largely agree to your point about the Collector base, but not about the Rachni.

I fully hope that at least one "Paragon" choice comes to bite me in the arse. Destroying the Collector base - and no, I didn't destroy it to give TIM the finger. I'm not interested in giving TIM the finger - I'm interested in saving the galaxy.

The Collector base seems like a red-herring. A "too easy" Trojan horse that could provide quick power... and it just didn't make sense. The giant thing is a hive - with no means of really supporting a non-Collector crew. It would seem like it would take forever to make anything that is part of it useful... so, instead of wasting resources sending out a crew to "tow" it back to some safe port - or "bring it online" in the field and leave it where the Reapers can get it - I decided to scuttle it. I felt it was basic "scorched earth" policy.

Also - if the all powerful ancient super-being Harbinger "didn't" want me to grab it - he could have had some self-destruct button. Instead, we get: "Oh Shepard - you're so awesome, you win. Here's a huge weapon you can dissect to fight us when we get here."

And yes - in a "One Ring" mentality, I felt like it was a deal with the devil for immediate gain. Cerberus would use it in the future to great detriment to the galaxy.

Anyway - blah blah - and I blew it up.

TIM is certainly a devious bastard, but his actions thus far have told me at the very least one thing about him:  He opposes the Reapers.  I never saw the Collector Base as any kind of super weapon, it just seems like a home for Collectors and Reaper production facility.  Some of the Collectors' various other experiments could also be in the Base.  The big thing about it though, is that it is more or less Reaper technology that may not have been engineered to stop anyone from learning about it (Mass Relays, Citadel, Keepers, Reapers and Reaper artifacts also have indoctrination defenses).  Maybe it can indoctrinate people as well, but I'd say its well worth the risk.  The best defense we have against other Reapers is the knowledge that if we kill their "super avatar" of sorts, their shields go down.  It is apparent from the fight with Sovereign that any possible advantage over them is an absolute necessity.  I'm curious as to what "deus ex" the writers will come up with that allow the Reapers to be destroyed.

Medhia Nox wrote...
But the Rachni - it's "almost" as blatant as Morinth that "Rachni = bad". We're told over and over that they're the indirect cause of so many issues... the Krogan and the genophage... a huge war... etc. etc. And then - we're forced to kill tons.

Honestly - I think it would be really easy for someone to come to the conclusion... this thing is going to be NOTHING but trouble.

True, but even ignoring the abhorrent nature of the renegade choice there are possible benefits to trusting the Queen.  IIRC Liara says something to that point if Shepard considers melting the Queen - "Stop feeling and think.  Even if you disagree with Asari morals, you must see she could be an ally."

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:05 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ryzaki wrote...
Let me use small words. 

Request denied.

I can use the same "whoo hoo?" arguement for your 'ZOMG WHY DO PARAGONS GET CAMEOS!!!!" tidbit. 

No you can't... unless you're agreeing with me.  You're using a different "whoo hoo"" arguement.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:02 .

[ThePwener]

This thread is heading to trollsville.....

Not that Im complaining.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yeah lets get back on topic... Ryzaki, you can have the last word on that tangent. And me not responding to it is not me ignoring you.

[Ryzaki]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Let me use small words. 

Request denied.

I can use the same "whoo hoo?" arguement for your 'ZOMG WHY DO PARAGONS GET CAMEOS!!!!" tidbit. 

No you can't... unless you're agreeing with me.  You're using a different "whoo hoo"" arguement.

More small words: 

They're both about content that the other side doesn't get. 

Clear now?  

Markinator_123 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Favoritism?

You do realize renegades constantly get easier battles right? (which is complete bull).

The cutscene Shepard gets to kill them instead of you.  Whoohooo?

A cutscene where some character tells Shepard they'll help him. Whoohooo? 

Fact is both sides get advantages over the other. If you want to belittle my grudges I can do the same. 

Interesting thing about Mass Effect you take Paragon actions and you can take Renegade actions. Just use the renegade interrupts and kill those pieces of crap.

 
And you can take the paragon decisions instead of the renegade ones. 

Frankly I'd like it if instead of killing enemies paragon Shepard could give them a chance to flee and some of the enemies took it. Just to balance out the whole renegade getting to push people out windows and ****. 

[GodWood]

Let me get this straight.

The 'renegade' side of the argument is that so far every paragon choice has so far had better results and more content then all the renegade choices (choices not interupts)
What they'd prefer is for some paragon choices to have negative consequences and some renegade choices have positive consequences so in the end each alignment gets equal treatment and the choices have actual weight behind them.

This seems perfectly fair and reasonable so what exactly is the other sides point?

[Markinator_123]

What's wrong with pushing people out of windows? The guy had it coming. Let him rot in hell.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

To restate once more... the issue is Favoritism. Where no Renegade decision has resulted in a more positive outcome than the Paragon alternative.

P.S. There is no Paragon alternative to interrupts. Paragons have their own interrupts... to which (likewise) there is no Renegade alternative.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

GodWood wrote...

Let me get this straight.

The 'renegade' side of the argument is that so far every paragon choice has so far had better results and more content then all the renegade choices (choices not interupts)
What they'd prefer is for some paragon choices to have negative consequences and some renegade choices have positive consequences so in the end each alignment gets equal treatment and the choices have actual weight behind them.

This seems perfectly fair and reasonable so what exactly is the other sides point?

I have no idea.. but that's a good point and question.  Usually their arguement is something either fabricated about Renegades or not focused on the topic at hand.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[ThePwener]

Renegade outcome gone right

Remember that ship in Garrus's recruitment mission? The one you can sabotage? That was a Renegade action... and it came out right. Many other also end up right. If you have the stomach for it, letting the workers die gets you the Blue Suns leader roasted.

[Ryzaki]

Markinator_123 wrote...

What's wrong with pushing people out of windows? The guy had it coming. Let him rot in hell.

 

See that's why no one wants to be around you renegade peeps. Your psychotic. (I'm teasing before some one gets a stick up their ass). 

As for the paragon interrupts. They always have a counterbalance by not taking the interrupt. The renegade kills on the other hand don't have a intimidate/persuade alternative most of the time. Which is bull. I think asking for paragon persuade mercs to run isn't an unreasonable request.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:16 .

[JBONE27]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I think Renegades should also win, but in a Renegade manner. You don't have to take one away from the other or make one better than the other.

This.  Paragon should have a fleet of allied alien races.  Renegade should have an all human fleet, but kick ass anyway.  Also, paragons should retire and do what he/she wants with total freedom, whereas the renegade should take over the entire galaxy and rule over it with an iron fist... like in KotOR.

[ThePwener]

Throwing people out of windows is the same as pushing someone out a ledge with a concussive shot or with push.

huh..... I just thought of something.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

ThePwener wrote...

Renegade outcome gone right

Remember that ship in Garrus's recruitment mission? The one you can sabotage? That was a Renegade action... and it came out right. Many other also end up right. If you have the stomach for it, letting the workers die gets you the Blue Suns leader roasted.

To be clear, the issue is not whether Renegades 'get the job done' or 'win' in the end.  It's that the most positive result comes from the Paragon alternative.

What was the Paragon alternative choice to the sabotage?

As far as Zaeed goes, it's more favoritism... because that was Zaeed's loyalty mission... and even when Shepard refused to do what Zaeed went there for, he still got his loyalty. 

Vido did not cause anything negative to happen throughout Mass Effect 2.. so letting him go was not a negative outcome.

[Ryzaki]

...Following that logic none of the paragon choices save the council (which could also be achieved by making Anderson councilor) had a positive effect either.

You got some emails (paragon and renegade) and a few throwaway cameos that's it. You didn't actually get any weapons, armor or valuable intel from being a paragon. Just a promise that something good'll come later.

Wow.

What an amazing difference! Totally paragons are the best because they get people saying they'll help later! ZOMG!

Wrex can be persuaded by either paragons/renegades before he's even brought up.  

Now I believe the renegades should get the lines and cameos as well. But let's not pretend this is something that it's not. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:20 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Following that logic none of the paragon choices save the council (which could also be achieved by making Anderson councilor) had a positive effect either.

You got some emails (paragon and renegade) and a few throwaway cameos that's it. You didn't actually get any weapons, armor or valuable intel from being a paragon.

That's not my logic.  The Paragon choice did save the council... you got Paragon points to prove it.

The Paragon choices provide the most positive validation, the most content, the most cameos, the most praise and postiive outcome.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:21 .

[Ryzaki]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

That's not my logic.  The Paragon choice did save the council... you got Paragon points to prove it.

But Shepard gets not advantage from it. NONE ZIPPO. The Spectre reinstatement can be done with a human council as long as Anderson is the council member. Rachni Queen just gives you a cameo and says she'll help out. That's it. Doesn't mean she will or be able to in ME3. You're making assumptions. Same with the heretical geth. We have no way of knowing which way it's gonna turn out. 

If you want to talk about strict advantages/negatives neither paragon or renegade have gotten any yet. Shocking I know! They have *potential* advantages/negatives. That's it. Potential. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:23 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

That's not my logic.  The Paragon choice did save the council... you got Paragon points to prove it.

But Shepard gets not advantage from it. NONE ZIPPO. The Spectre reinstatement can be done with a human council as long as Anderson is the council member. 

You save a lot more lives and get the Council's blessing/are on good terms with them... to start.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:24 .

[Arijharn]

Ryzaki wrote...
Uh...that's not what I said. I said both saving the council or/and saving the CB gives you additional weapons and such that you would not normally get. Each decision comes with its own perks and drawbacks. Saving the council would give you access to certain turian/asari technology, saving the CB would give you access to certain reaper/collector technology. Killing both would give you squat. Saving both you give you all the goods.

Ahh, it was your nested brackets that confused me. Foiled by a lack of reading comprehension!

Ryzaki wrote...

I never said they wouldn't. But if a war if you hve extra resources are you really gonna horde them for yourself and not give them to an ally? Especially if said ally is in dire need of the resources?

The point being is that you never know if you'll need those extra resources either, so yeah... I think they will horde generally speaking because I think it'll be a natural response to make. That's not to say that they wont send a sizeable contribution, just that I don't think it's going to automatically favour paragons as much as you seem to think.

We're basically saying the same thing I feel, just probably approaching it from different directions.

Ryzaki wrote...
They're not. But the fact that earth is being completely reamed (the humans aren't just being killed they're being collected) should send up red flags. The Reapers are also more likely to do *less* damage to earth because of what they're trying to do the humans.

While that may be the case, I wouldn't predicate high level strategic thinking onto the assumption that they'll be reaming us 'less' than what they could be. As far as I know, it's not common knowledge that the Reapers were connected with the Collector's to begin with and I find it kinda dubious to make the assumption that the Reaper's still want to merely 'collect us' compared to just straight doing what they do usually.

I think you're right though meta-speaking wise, because I think it has something to do with why Cerberus is co-operating with the Reapers. I.e., why they're hunting Shephard, and what Cerberus wants to gain from it. I don't think that they're necessarily 'indoctrinated' and more than anything else; I think a reason for the the slow rate of Reaper consumption of Earth is a bargaining tool Cerberus used to fulfill it's objectives, which may just be to buy time for a proper force to be assembled to take it the Reaper's out.

Ryzaki wrote...

However I doubt the turians would've shared the Thannix with humanity. So all those weapons are pretty worthless against the reapers on the humans end. 

If they wouldn't 'willingly' share that with their allies, then that to me just makes the concept of Cerberus and their actions for the some part, more essential as far as I'm concerned.

Ryzaki wrote...
Except I never really seen anyone go "hey we're in this together." to someone they percieve as an enemy as much as they would to someone they're friendly with. Not to mention based off the interviews if they're fighting among each other (geth/quarians) I doubt they'll pass up a chance to do the same for humans. Stupid...but likely. People aren't completely rational creatures. Never have been. I don't know. We'll see whose right when ME3 happens.

I don't think in this case it would be rational, rather irrational fear that would cause them to work together. As far as things go I think the arrival of the Reaper's pretty much represents the doomsday scenario. If the backstory between stuff like the First Contact War factors into it; then surely by now they'd have to start connecting some dots together.

But yes, I agree... we'll just have to see!

[HogarthHughes 3]

JBONE27 wrote...

This.  Paragon should have a fleet of allied alien races.  Renegade should have an all human fleet, but kick ass anyway.  Also, paragons should retire and do what he/she wants with total freedom, whereas the renegade should take over the entire galaxy and rule over it with an iron fist... like in KotOR.

<_< I hope not.  The renegade path is supposedly meant to be more of an anti-hero than a villain.  Admittedly some of the choices get this confused from time to time, but for the most part they follow that line of thought.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 10 juillet 2011 - 03:27 .