1768 réponses à ce sujet

[CptData]

To make it -really- short: it shouldn't matter if you pick the paragon way or the renegade way or a less extreme path between both. You simply should be able to achieve "full victory" even if renegade means one or two extra missions or hardships than paragon.

One thing that bugged me in ME2 was that you had to be FULL (90% and more) paragon or FULL renegade for some decisions, especially Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion. Less extreme players won't get any reward here - they can't solve the issues named characters have without losing loyalty of one.

[Xilizhra]

How about if you kill the Council to win the battle? If it turns out you win battle regardless then killing the Council was unnecessary.

This was quite frankly inevitable. No single choice will lead to a nonstandard game over unless it's exceedingly obvious and requiring you get past multiple "are you really sure" checks, like sleeping with Morinth.

How about if you kill the terrorist to stop him from repeating his actions or you capture him to interrogate him? If the other side has him never commit terrorism again and he even winds up helping you then the other choice is invalidated.

It's not invalidated if you gain information by the interrogation. Moreover, using the outcome of a choice that you don't take is metagaming and should hold no grounds in determining how the choices should work.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I don't think all paths should be equal necessarily. I just want some semblance of logic and realism when it comes to decisions. They shouldn't exist in a vacuum and if you take dangerous risks because you don't want to compromise your moral principals then you should have to pay the cost. All the pieces are there to balance both sides but Bioware doesn't want to do it.

No Paragon choice exists solely to take a dangerous risk to avoid compromising moral principles.

[Xilizhra]

No it wasn't.

I never realized you were this unimaginative, Xilizhra.

So you think it would have been acceptable if saving the Council meant instant death?

Except you don't. Killing Balak accomplishes nothing and actually makes things worse. It's actually pretty funny.

A problem with Renegade, not Paragon.

[Xilizhra]

That's what the Balak choice is all about. It is in large part what the Rachni choice is all about (though the "She could be a powerful ally" line is there). The Council choice is framed this way as is the Collector base choice.

The Balak choice frequently also mentions that Balak is screwed and likely won't be able to commit further acts of terrorism even if he's released. The rachni choice isn't purely about that, and nor is the Council one.

Oh I know, you like to make up motivations for your Shepard when it comes to blowing up the base. That however is just fan fiction.

I actually did know you were this unimaginative.

[Xilizhra]

Yes I do. It's a good thing the game auto-saves when you reach the Council chambers. If Arrival can give you a game-over essentially making the same choice then the first game could have done it too.

You only get a game over in Arrival if you stand still for two hours.
And I'm glad Bioware disagreed with you on the acceptability.

No, it's a problem with Paragon too. Their decision to let a dangerous lunatic walk free actually makes the galaxy safer!

You did ask for unexpected consequences.

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

That's what the Balak choice is all about. It is in large part what the Rachni choice is all about (though the "She could be a powerful ally" line is there). The Council choice is framed this way as is the Collector base choice.

The Balak choice frequently also mentions that Balak is screwed and likely won't be able to commit further acts of terrorism even if he's released. The rachni choice isn't purely about that, and nor is the Council one..

The problem is Balak could literally stap on a bomb, or just get a gun and start shooting or blowing sh*t up, and kill more people than what he was holding hostage.

[Xilizhra]

HiroVoid wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That's what the Balak choice is all about. It is in large part what the Rachni choice is all about (though the "She could be a powerful ally" line is there). The Council choice is framed this way as is the Collector base choice.

The Balak choice frequently also mentions that Balak is screwed and likely won't be able to commit further acts of terrorism even if he's released. The rachni choice isn't purely about that, and nor is the Council one..

The problem is Balak could literally stap on a bomb, or just get a gun and start shooting or blowing sh*t up, and kill more people than what he was holding hostage.

If Balak was a suicide bomber type, he'd have done that already.

[HiroVoid]

And just shooting innocent or random people? This is a guy who tried to destroy an entire planet, and he's still got a lifetime to do other crap.

[Sgt Stryker]

Xilizhra wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That's what the Balak choice is all about. It is in large part what the Rachni choice is all about (though the "She could be a powerful ally" line is there). The Council choice is framed this way as is the Collector base choice.

The Balak choice frequently also mentions that Balak is screwed and likely won't be able to commit further acts of terrorism even if he's released. The rachni choice isn't purely about that, and nor is the Council one..

The problem is Balak could literally stap on a bomb, or just get a gun and start shooting or blowing sh*t up, and kill more people than what he was holding hostage.

If Balak was a suicide bomber type, he'd have done that already.

If anything, Balak would be the sort to tell someone else to strap a bomb to their chest For Great Batarian Justice.

[Xilizhra]

The principal is the same however. Shepard is making the same choice that he made at the Battle of the Citadel if he saved the Council. The stakes are the same. The choice is the same.

The choice is not the same, as can be clearly evidenced by the fact that the same Shepard made different choices.

I'm sure you do love what Bioware did, XIlizhra, because you clearly are opposed ot there being any negative consequences to anything your Shepard does.

I believe that choice should be made by those who actually play the game like I do. If a Paragon player wants to have worse outcomes because they like the drama, I'll respect that (I believe there's enough drama as it is, but your mileage may vary). If a Renegade wants to damage a playthrough they don't participate in because its existence damages their ego, then I can't help you.

And just shooting innocent or random people? This is a guy who tried to destroy an entire planet, and he's still got a lifetime to do other crap.

I just don't see it as fitting his personality.

[HiroVoid]

I see him continuing a life of either crime, slave runs, or something else which would still lead to him killing or enslaving more people then he was holding hostage at the time. I don't see him as the type of guy to get older talking to his grandson and going 'Hey. There was that one time I tried to blow up a planet. Crazy times then, sonny boy'.

[capn233]

If you didn't kill all the pyjaks in UNC: Lost Module it should be impossible to beat ME3.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The choice is not the same, as can be clearly evidenced by the fact that the same Shepard made different choices.

It's called railroading, sweety. You eat it up because you don't want to admit that consistency on your end would have gotten everyone killed and probably because you'd like to defend Bioware.

I suspect you lack the ability (or more likely the desire) to comprehend my own arguments on the matter.

[HiroVoid]

There is a difference between the end of ME1 and Arrival.
ME1: A paragon risks reaper invasion to save 10,000 people. A renegade takes no risk by focusing on Sovereign.
Arrival: No matter what, the colony will be destroyed.

[Destroy Raiden_]

CptData wrote...

To make it -really- short: it shouldn't matter if you pick the paragon way or the renegade way or a less extreme path between both. You simply should be able to achieve "full victory" even if renegade means one or two extra missions or hardships than paragon.

One thing that bugged me in ME2 was that you had to be FULL (90% and more) paragon or FULL renegade for some decisions, especially Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion. Less extreme players won't get any reward here - they can't solve the issues named characters have without losing loyalty of one.

Agree the way BW handled 2 there was scarily a need to employ the para blue or ren red dialogue options the whole Tali/Legion, Miranda/Jack disputes should've been able to be solved with those options anyway w/o precondition because at least in the case of tali and legion they were both right ! Why do we need a special blue option to say that? It should've been the neutral response at least. I can see para blue red rens for Saren that worked well we were trying to make him understand what he thought he was doing was wrong I can see shep needing to really employ the convincing power there but not on other issues like hostage negotiations, defense strategies, or convincing weak mooks to give up and go home.

I also agree that renagades and paragons need to be rewarded as well for not being mindless and only picking up or down. But the way they set it up now the only way I can see paragades and renagons getting any mega points and rewards is if BW rewarded more points to players for staying in context with the lines being said for instance if Mordin says, " And that's why I love science," This line is a neutral statement there is no need to chastise or praise him a simple, " That's nice" would do so picking that neutral that's nice response gets you more points because you stayed in context, now doing para or ren here would still get you points just not as much. The para ren options would however gain you more points in high stress situations then a neutral would because during those times one must be decisive.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


I suspect you lack the ability (or more likely the desire) to comprehend my own arguments on the matter.

Xilizhra, your arguments are not terribly complex. They are just stupid.

And yet I keep winning in the actual game.

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


I suspect you lack the ability (or more likely the desire) to comprehend my own arguments on the matter.

Xilizhra, your arguments are not terribly complex. They are just stupid.

And yet I keep winning in the actual game.

You'll are forgetting to put after each of your posts except with a frown.