1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I agree it's still salvageable. But the way things are set up suggests that the pattern might hold:
(1) The Rachni queen has promised she'll help us
(2) Cerberus is working for the Reapers. That appears to invalidate saving the CB.

I don't think Bioware can backtrack on (1) convincingly without the cheap solution of having the queen indoctrinated, but the outcome of the CB decision is salvageable. The knowledge contained in it is still more accessible in a hostile Cerberus than it would be if only the Reapers had it, and it makes going through Cerberus to get at the Reapers more convincing. I just hope they won't fob of those who keep the base with a minor benefit with no storyline impact.  

Her promise means squat if she gets screwed over. And indoctrination doesn't have to affect the queen. It could just as easily be her chidren and then she has to strain resources trying to get them to calm the hell down. She could easily bite paragons in the ass by being well intentioned.  

As for 2. I thought only *part* of Cerberus was indoctrinated? In that scenario they could be similar to the Rachni queen giving you advantages in certain areas (weapons and the like) but completely screwing Shepard over in others (they know how Shep's weapons work, they're walking around with mattocks and god help Shepard if they remake the Cain.  ) Maybe there's a sidequest for both of them you have to achieve within a certain moment of time to make them more useful than harmful. Basically killing of the indoctrinated ones so the others aren't getting harmed by them or something. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:27 .

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...
As for 2. I thought only *part* of Cerberus was indoctrinated? In that scenario they could be similar to the Rachni queen giving you advantages in certain areas (weapons and the like) but completely screwing Shepard over in others (they know how Shep's weapons work, they're walking around with mattocks and god help Shepard if they remake the Cain.  ) Maybe there's a sidequest for both of them you have to achieve within a certain moment of time to make them more useful than harmful. Basically killing of the indoctrinated ones so the others aren't getting harmed by them or something.

Gameplay benefits mean nothing to me if they just affect the difficulty of parts of the game. I'm more concerned about the big picture, even if the consequence only manifests as an email. Should, for instance, the CB give us better better knowledge about how to fight the Reapers, then things could work out similarly to how the ship upgrades work in ME2, but it should ALSO be indicative of how the fight goes for all of the allied forces. AND it should have influence on the after-the-Reapers galactic scenario. 

The same with all the "epic" choices - those about the Council, the Rachni queen, the Heretics, the Migrant Fleet, the Collector base. They should all affect the after-the-Reapers scenario as well as how the war goes beyond Shepard's actions.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:43 .

[Yezdigerd]

I think the main problem with renegade is the poor writing. I like playing a Shephard that is badass and hit the bad guys with extreme prejudice, I take all the renegade options that allows me to do it, that leaves me with about 15-20% renegade, the rest of the options make me cringe or laugh.

Most renegade choices aren't ruthlessly utilarian, but cheap, visceral, childish thrills. Renegade philosopy is also all over the place.It seems most easily defined with "evil"
They execute criminals like Fist, to see justice for their victims, which should be a paragon concern really. How being routinely rude and abrasive to questgivers will somehow help them get the job done and better rewards I never knew.
Given the psychopatic actions of renegades it make sense that they get less interaction, since a pure renagede kills every pixel that moves. and that criminally insane Shepard don't get many thank you notes is also entirely consistent with this.

Either way,paragon and renegade choices have just had cosmetic consequences for the story so far and I doubt very much it will change.
If anyone should have a persecution complex its the neutral responses that in both games always been a lose option.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .

[Lumikki]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I think the main problem with renegade is the poor writing. I like playing a Shephard that is badass and hit the bad guys with extreme prejudice, I take all the renegade options that allows me to do it, that leaves me with about 15-20% renegade, the rest of the options make me cringe or laugh.

I agree, the issue is that renegade choises aren't line as been just ruthless agressive badass, but many times also jerk, rasist and many other things, what player may not want to be. Of cause only with three choises to choose it's hard to have all options what player could want to be.

They execute criminals like Fist, to see justice for their victims, which should be a paragon concern really.

This is also issue, but not Biowares, it's players issue.

This kind of action is not paragon and never should be thinked as. Looking situation like badass action should be rewarded, because thinking it wasn't really bad action, but justice. Remember when bad action is the right one, it never gives renegade anything, it just cause paragon action to be wrong one and takes paragon reward away. Same way that most renegade action by nature of actions doesn't give reward after, because dead people don't thank you.

Revenge and general killing is not paragon way. Please don't take the word "killing" wrong way, because Shepards kills a lot, but it's different do you shoot for self defence or because you want justice or think galaxy is better place without someone. In War you kill enemies, but when you kill "people" who aren't war enemies, then it change.

Renegade, neutral and paragon are just different attitudes to deal situations. Player can also mix them based situations. It's never just one way only, like some care path. Paragon and renegade are different as not equal by they consequences, because they action are different by nature it self and cause different kind of consequences or lack of consequences.

Now it's fine request wanting that sometimes paragon action doesn't get rewarded, because renegade action was right one for the end result. Like example killing Rachni Queen doesn't cause them to become later you enemy. That kind of end result. But it should not happen too often, because is spoils nature of paragon. Meaning how can I be "Good guy" if so many good action leads in bad result. You see what I mean. Exception are fine and even realistic, but not too often.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:51 .

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Gameplay benefits mean nothing to me if they just affect the difficulty of parts of the game. I'm more concerned about the big picture, even if the consequence only manifests as an email. Should, for instance, the CB give us better better knowledge about how to fight the Reapers, then things could work out similarly to how the ship upgrades work in ME2, but it should ALSO be indicative of how the fight goes for all of the allied forces. AND it should have influence on the after-the-Reapers galactic scenario. 

The same with all the "epic" choices - those about the Council, the Rachni queen, the Heretics, the Migrant Fleet, the Collector base. They should all affect the after-the-Reapers scenario as well as how the war goes beyond Shepard's actions.

 

I meant weapons as in both normal weapons and ship weapons. 

Though true they should all have an affect. It would be nice if they all had both positive and negative outcomes (with either overpower the other as the situation warrants). 

[JayhartRIC]

Valentia X wrote...

Pharos wrote...

What this entire thread boils down to is that renegade players want to be able to play through ME3 and at the end of it all go 'Ha! I told you so!' to all the paragons. I doubt that is going to happen...nor do I expect paragons will be able to do so either.

It'll all depend on the player anyway...the consequences of one decision may be acceptable to one player and not another despite the fact they both prefer to use the same in-game 'morality'. And how do we judge success anyway? Its all very subjective: to one player the virtual or total annihilation of one or more species as a consequence of their choices is acceptable, to another it would be utterly unacceptable, particularly if it is a species they like for one reason or other.

Paragon and Renegade decisions will both have 'good' and 'bad' conseqences...it is entirely up to the player (and what they judge to be acceptable or not) as to whether a decision was for the best.

Um... what?

I agree that there are some renegade players who ascribe to what you said in the first line, but not all of them. What most of us have been asking for/debating is basically consequences for everyone, some good, some bad.


The most basic way I can think to put it is an example from Virmire. At two points, basically back to back, you have the opportunity to release a salarian from their holding cells. Paragoning both results in you setting them free. Renegading both leaves them locked up/presumably dead. If you paragon both:

One of them thanks you and runs off screen and out of the story.
One of them has been indoctrinated and you end up having to kill them.

That is what I want to see more of in the story. I have two Shepards, a paragon and a renegon, and the renegon tends to be a big bag of jerkass to people, but about 75% of the time makes the paragon decision, so I miss a very small amount of content, if any at all. I would like to get shot in the face with the fact that by being merciful, I have set my own cause back. I would like to, with some of these, get validation that being pragmatic, even if it's not necessarily my first choice, was the right decision. I want this just as much as I enjoy seeing Shiala again, helping the Zhu's Hope people (she's a personal favourite and the only time my Shepard enjoyed embracing eternity) and as much as I like hearing the positive comments from the shopkeepers in the Citadel because I saved the council. 

I want variety.

This sums it up perfectly.

Modifié par JayhartRIC, 10 juillet 2011 - 06:32 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yes, avoiding Paragon favoritism in Mass Effect 3 is possible... but only if they realize that it's something they need to do.

It was Mass Effect 2 that really made the seires favor Paragon decisions. Mass Effect 1 on its own had a surprisingly nice balance... but the sequel changed that balance and made everything favor the Paragon side. I also think that the evidence is hard to ignore.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had balance because none of the decisions had any consequences yet.

They had some... you saw the Paragon choice lose a lot of ships... but they saved the Ascension.
On the flip side you saw the Ascension destroyed but none of the ships were touched.

No numbers are brought up so you could consider it even at this point.  Both take down Sovereign.

Paragon Council brings Humanity to the fold with the Council's personal gratitude.

Renegade/Neutral Council have humans leading the way.

Pretty fair.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:01 .

[ubermensch007]

Jebel Krong wrote...paragons should get just as many negative consequences as renegades if the game is balanced realistically.

But is life really all that balanced? I don't know - I mean.. Really in some ways there is more that is unbalnaced than balanced.Economic Inequality:You only have to look at the ever growing imbalance betwixt the rich and the poor.As Bush Jr. put it," We have here.The well off and the weller off." ( he said something like that)

To look at nature one could put a spotlight on the fact that this planet has far mor salt water than fresh water and not only that.Where fresh water is located, isn't exactly distributed equitably over all seven continents. <_<

As Lumikki put it,"Not much more to say, than renegade and paragon aren't equal and they
should not even be, because they are totally different kind of behavior
paths.

Mr.Gogeta34 wrote... Cerberus is said to be against Shepard no matter what and we heard that
right out of the gate as far as the plot is concerned.  Jacob (if you destroy the base) also makes it very clear that Cerberus would be coming after Shepard.

That's why I was saying that even the premise of Cerberus in Mass Effect 3 wraps around
the Paragon decision... because you know ahead of time that Cerberus would be an enemy out of the gate.

With this, I think that BioWare is just deciding to do the opposite of what the default narrative was in Mass Effect 2.Which was "Renegade Decision"

Valentia X wrote...

There's also
that sticky moral issue, but that might just be me. I felt sick when I
first played through the game and saw David hooked up.

Saphra Deden wrote...I didn't like it either but it isn't your job to think with your heart. In fact, it's a betrayal of your job. Your obligation and duty, you might say, is to think with your head. David's suffering is worth it.

(Someone else said something about this on one of the earlier pages, that I wanted to respond to as well, I'm crunched for time so, I can't look for the post quote)

"The ends justify the means." The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few..." The latter is such a powerful assertion that it can cause one to take it as self evident and unquestionable.But as it has been said by another,"Every argument has a counter-argument." I nusually attempt to counter this sort of mentality by saying, "Quality over quantity" Which can come off sounding pretty damn flippant.Even when you don't mean it too.
But a good example of this being so, is in Terminator Salvation.The Resistance had a target, Skynet.They were going to accept the collateral damage, but John Conner told them that, "If we stay the course, we are dead! We are all dead!"

(Because Kyle Reese was being held in that facility.) None of us ever knows ahead of time, how important one person can be.What ways an individual may shape all our futures.Whether by way of inventing some new technology, idealogy or institution...I think Dumbledore, I mean Gandalf said it best when speaking to Frodo about Smegal/Gollum.

Frodo:
It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.

Gandalf:Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve
death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play
yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.[/b] 
(Oh on a side note this is what  i think Lumikki was trying to say when she was going on about 1 vs 1 000 000 000 000 )

What really troubles me about those who believe that "David's suffering is worth it!" Is that isn't that kind of treatment.The embodiment of Totalitarianism? Isn't that what **** Germany was like.The individual only exist to serve the good of the state.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

I'll never forget how David looks at Shepard when your talking to his brother. And I felt that if I were in his place.I would find a way to make Shepard and all those who are exploiting him pay for this... If Shepard did not release me...

And there is no way that Jack would ever let Shepard get away with doing something like that.She might get taken out, but Shepard and his allies would never forget the damage that she caused them.This would be like the altercation with Wrex on Virmire, but to the nth degree! David would become the 'New Jack' I actually hope this is something that BioWare does.If you let Dr.Gavin Archer keep David in that state.The consequence should be that in Mass Effect 3 that he does all within his power to kill Shepard and destroy Cerberus.Because as far as I'm concerned if your Shepard did that.The bastard deserves to be hunted like an animal and recieve revenge by David as a "dish best served cold"

The ends do not always justify the means.One thing that people often forget when they decide on a hard course of action is how fragile - how easily - Irony can stop by to say hello.Is just like with this example I gave with Project Overlord.Its just like what happened with Subject Zero: Jack.Instead of being a friend of mankind, they become a foe...Jack has probably took out more Cerberus Agents and instillations than Zaeed.David killed next to everyone directly involved in P.O.

It is better to be a volunteer than to be conscripted...A volunteer knows and excepts what he or she is getting into.A conscript is forced to be or do something that they did not sign up for.And that's a recipe for disaster."If my work spares a million mothers mourning the lost of a million sons.My conscience will rest easy." Dr.Gavin Archer

How can you argue with something like that?!

The best counter-argument (Or at the very least, the most provocative) that I have ever heard to "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." About the value of one life.Is The Parable of the Lost Sheep

Luke 15:3-7   He told them this parable."Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them,wouldn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it?  When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  When he comes home, he calls together
his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine
righteous people who need no repentance."

Dr.Archer is a fascinating character.Some of the things he says, I sort of agree with.

Shepard: Who gave you the right to "play God" ?

Dr.Archer: The people who were to afraid to make difficult decisions themselves.When they pray for a miracle.There -- really praying for men like me to make the tough choices.

Even though Cerberus has many faults.One of the things that I shall always commend them for, is at least they are 'Proactive' .After the geth attack on Eden Prime.They created Project Overlord.I mean that's like the textbook definition of proactivity: acting in anticipation of future problems, needs or changes.

But (in some ways) charcters like Dr.Archer, are not true men of science.There just "Thugs with a Ph.D. !! This post is getting way to long so in closing I shall just say that what I would like to see happen with Paragon/Renegade Choices in ME 3 is for them to sometimes be booby traps.It would be cool if every now and then, if you press the Interupt button.It totally backfires on you.This is what I thought it was in ME 2 at first.I didn't press the button alot of times b/c its reactionary and requires no thought process.It a total, "Think Fast" (Catch) moment by BioWare.And I don't like it all that much.I like to deliberate every now and then.It probably took me five minutes or more before I decided what I was going to say to the Admiralty Board during Tali's Trial.After I had retrieved the data which proved Tali's innocents and made a war criminal of her father.

Perhaps I have still not found a strong enough counter argument to "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few" & "the ends justify the means" But I agree wholeheartedly with what Frodo says to Boromir.

Boromir: None of us should wander alone, you least of all. So much
depends on you. Frodo? I know why you seek solitude. You suffer; I see
it day by day. You sure you do not suffer needlessly? There are other
ways, Frodo, other paths that we might take.

Frodo: I know what you would say. And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning in my heart.

Boromir: Warning? Against what? We're all afraid, Frodo. But to let that
fear drive us to destroy what hope we have. Don't you see that is
madness?

Frodo: There is no other way!

Boromir: I ask only for the strength to defend my people! If you would but lend me the Ring...

Frodo: No.
Okay.Stick a fork in me.I'm done.

Modifié par ubermensch007, 13 juillet 2011 - 06:54 .

[Massadonious1]

David was only turned into a sympathetic character because his brother's "tough" choice of cranking him up to 11 from the start almost turned the entire galaxy in to the Matrix.

[Massadonious1]

I meant if the project was handled properly, we never would of met him.

Shepard fixes Cerberus screw up, Shepard sees crying boy, Shepard saves crying boy.
Cerberus doesn't screw up, Shepard never meets crying boy, project continues per usual.

[Praetor Knight]

How David was strung up was what got me.


http://t3.gstatic.co...EwqyV4Q67V5kvS9

[Massadonious1]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I meant if the project was handled properly, we never would of met him.

Well if the project was handled properly we never would have had a mission to play, now would we?

Right. I'm obviously thinking beyond the game here. 

[Ryzaki]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

How David was strung up was what got me.


http://t3.gstatic.co...EwqyV4Q67V5kvS9

This. There is no goddamn reason for him to be hooked up like that. Why on earth are his eyes being forcibly pulled open? Why are those tubes in his mouth? WTF man? I mean...the mouth can probably be justifid by needing his voice to sound a certain way. The eyes have no goddamn excuse though. His eyes are probably dry as hell inthat position and dry eyes are ****ing horrible. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 juillet 2011 - 07:16 .

[Massadonious1]

Heh, yeah, that was pretty humorous.

For such a ho-hum grunt at the beginning, Shepard does get thrusted in to a lot of situations where he has to make decisions way above his pay-grade.

Stopping the Reapers/Collectors is obvious, but some of the other decisions is right place/right time stuff. I fully expect to stumble on a Cancer/AIDS cure and then decide what to do or how to distribute it.

[Ryzaki]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Yeah, I'm sure Archer did just because he likes seeing his brother suffer. 

What other reason was there for it? 

I mean wide open eyes? What exactly is the point of that? How on earth did David sleep? Not sleeping usually leads to one suffering from delusions. Did he sleep with his eyes like that? Could he sleep with his eyes like that? 

Archer can't even give it up even after everything's crumbled around him. I really wish Shepard could shoot his ass. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 juillet 2011 - 07:31 .

[Ryzaki]

Ah nevermind. 

Really Overlord...oi vey. Cerberus...oh Cerberus. I really hope I can destroy both you, the council and the alliance. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 juillet 2011 - 07:49 .