1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroy Raiden_]

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.

That's the risk you take with him let him go to murder potentially more people like Dr. Heart did just to save a few hostages or kill those hostages to save countless lives. Neither choice is great and that's part of it both hold bad points you destroy a whole family not only did that girl sacrifice her brother to save your cover but you could kill her to thank her for her efforts to save her parents neither are easy to live with and while I think if you choose to kill her it should end there no cameo or email from her family you get nothing but if you let Balack go he should come back to bit you in the ass for 3 be an uber boss and try to kill you or worse more people the decision then would be even harder since its all on this will be done on his own terms he won't be unprepared for your arrival like he was the last time.

Another cause and effect should occur with the death of Samara either via the SM or because the player chose Mornith the lack of Samara in the world  should change it for the worse ( and yes I got Samara killed so I'm asking to be punished for it) Mornith shouldn't be an ally unless you are a ren shep a para shep who somehow thought it good to save her should have to track her down later in game because she's killing hordes of people and finish what Samara started with greater risks.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

Of course, as most of them exist for the sole reason of compromising said moral principles.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:51 .

[Izhalezan]

Long live the Paragade.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

And yet I keep winning in the actual game.

Which is kind of proving our point, dear.

[Labrev]

GodWood wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Don't be silly. Every choice's outcome is bad to the renegade die-hards until/unless they get total victory AND know that all the paragon choices were wrong ones.

Anything less, and it's paragon-favoritism.

Gotta love how the side that rails on the other for always getting to have their cake and eat it is unhappy themselves at getting anything less.

I think it's safe to say all we've ever wanted is 'some' renegade decisions to come out better then the paragon ones, and vice versa.

I don't know why you people are against this idea.

And that's the sad part. There are outcomes in the script that should legitimately vindicate renegade decisions, like the rachni thing and the geth. It makes the renegade decisions look wise, while not withholding game content of a mission from the player.

But whiny BSN renegades (I say BSN-renegades because I've only ever seen this constant renegade outrage on BSN, and nowhere else when conversing about the game) just want to whine and be miserable if they get anything less than total victory with the game explicitly saying "Good job renegade! You saved everyone! Thank goodness you are not a paragon who would have gotten us all killed!!!"

First, their outrage was over how paragons get special content and then assignments like Gianna Parisini on Illium. So now that it's the opposite and has been made balanced, it's Kaiser Shepard & Co running amok with "Why do we both get the same things??? Our choices don't matter anymore!!!"

So you only have your own attitudes to blame if you choose to be miserable about things you can and should feel good about.

In truth, I'm not totally suprised. I'd seen the whining from this side for a long while now and expected that nothing would be good enough in ME3 because whiners never stop whining (unless they are bent over backwards to).

[Adugan]

Renegades sacrifice people to get the objective finished. Therefore they sacrifice the best ending to get AN ending. There can be no best ending as a Renegade.

Modifié par Adugan, 24 novembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[Dave of Canada]

Adugan wrote...

Renegades sacrifice people to get the objective finished. Therefore they sacrifice the best ending to get AN ending. There can be no best ending as a Renegade.

And paragons put the objective at risk for their morals. Therefore, they should sacrifice the objective to get an ending where they feel good about themselves. There should be no best ending as a Paragon.

[hawat333]

Chris Priestly wrote...

ODST 3 wrote...

Nope, when the Reapers wipe out all life in the galaxy, my Renegade Shepard will consider it a win.

You mean when she/he is dead then?

To be dead, she/he has to be alive. But Shepard is only mostly dead or techincally undead to begin with.
So that still hangs in the air. Maybe she/he will be the first techno-zombie with an own mind, therefore becoming the king of the husks, leading them to victory against... well, anything, basically.
Or something like that.

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Paragons risk everything to uphold their morals, including risking the mission. You could say that Paragons sacrifice the ending to stay ethical. There can be no best ending as a Paragon.

That's as patently false as anything I've ever seen on this forum, SD.

I have said on this forum many times that if Balak the terrorist showed up with a workable plan to kill a Reaper by ramming an asteriod into it, my Paragon saint of a Shep will work with him.

The real difference between Paragon and Renegade styles is that Paragon-style concentrates on the one real enemy and Renegade style is just paranoid.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 02:14 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

scyphozoa wrote...
. Paragon is well defined, but renegade is not, and is often unjustified or unexplained behavior.  

That's the problem, renegade isn't supposed to be "unjustified or unexplained behavior". It's suposed to be taking the most efficient course to get the job done whilst maybe sacrificing the good of some random NPC or what have you. It's NOT supposed to = douchebag that punches innocent civilians. 

It's only become that b/c of the "cool", "awesome", "edgy" factor Bioware is trying to convey. HEY GUYS LOOK YOU CAN PLAY A RENEGADE AND PUNCH PEOPLE FOR NO REASON! XD

That's not what they are supposed to be. 

Take the Council decision in ME1. Paragon is save the council for the good of the galactic stability after the war while the renegade choice is to not waste reinforcements to save a crippled ship and focus on the actual threat saving the galaxy now, without thinking about the future. 

That's what a renegade choice should be IMO.

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it is not false. I challenge you refute what I said. I'm predicting you will fail.

I present, as Exhibit A:

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

I have said on this forum many times that if Balak the terrorist showed up with a workable plan to kill a Reaper by ramming an asteriod into it, my Paragon saint of a Shep will work with him.

Okay. Now what does that have to do with anything?

*facepalm"

OK, SD, try to remember your own argument. You know, the one in which you said:

Saphra Deden wrote...

Paragons risk everything to uphold
their morals, including risking the mission. You could say that Paragons
sacrifice the ending to stay ethical. There can be no best ending as a
Paragon.

My "saint" of a Paragon is willing to work with a terrorist. If what you contend were true, he'd be unwilling to do that.

Oh bad move, kid. You see with this statement you exposed your bias. To you Paragons is perfect and Renegade is just wrong.

That's the worst straw-man logical fallacy I've seen in a while, SD. I never said Paragons were perfect. You can know EXACTLY who the real enemy is and still screw up horribly. All I said is that some players got one thing right. which happens to be the thing that matters the most, I admit.

The rest just dribbles on from your false premise.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 02:33 .

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

My "saint" of a Paragon is willing to work with a terrorist. If what you contend were true, he'd be unwilling to do that.

I think you are full of crap. Regardless, working with Balak to save lives isn't a choice we've been presented with in the games.

I can't help what you think, SD, but I can (with some searching) show you posts where I've said this for many a month, probably more than a year, and it wasn't in the context of a paragon-renegade discussion, either. I'll post links when I find them.

EDITED P.S. It was One year ago

Was your Shepard willing to turn the Collector base over to TIM? In essence that is the same as working with Balak to kill a Reaper.

How is working with a terrorist the "same" as empowering a much more dangerous one?

I wish your keyboard would break.

Whatever

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 02:48 .

[GMagnum]

da dunkin donut coolata is da best drink eva made jus want 2 let yall kno dat have a gud nite n god bless

[Thompson family]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

How is working with a terrorist the "same" as empowering a much more dangerous one?

You are both working together to stop a menace which threatens to kill you both. That's the similarity. I'm gratified to see that as I expected you are trying to weasel your way out of this and avoid admitting that you are being a hypocrite.

The target of the Balak/Shepard asteriod is a Reaper. The raw material is rock.
The target of the TIM/Shepard base is a Reaper, perhaps, but the raw material is liquified people and the technology is far in advance of everyone else's.

If this was the 1940's, I'd work with Balak to blow up a bunch of enemies with dynamite, but I wouldn't give him a nuclear bomb processing plant.

Big difference.

Since your Shepard agreed to kill the batarian colonists for the good of the galaxy did he also agree to kill the Council the same reason?

False comparison, SD. Killing the Council was counter-productive to stopping the Reapers. Why? Because the chief feature of the Reaper plan is to wipe out Organic goverment. The Citadel is bait to attract the central government to locate there. Letting the Reapers kill the Council is allowing them a partial success. The Renegade explanation, that it allows a powerful human-dominated government, is naive.

Therefore, my Shep saved the Council, making the Organic victory at the Battle of the Citadel more complete by frustrating a basic Reaper goal.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 03:08 .