Aller au contenu

Photo

Can we not have Paragon=Best Outcome (In terms of story and content)?


1768 réponses à ce sujet

#1301
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Vigil just gave you time. [re:Battle of the Citadel]  The situation hasn't changed. If you don't succeed here and now then the Reapers enter the galaxy here and now. You can save the Council, but that will reduce your chances of winning.

It is the same as Arrival. You must succeed here and now or the Reapers will enter here and now. You could choose not to blow up the relay, but then you will be less prepared to face the Reapers.


The significant difference,clearly, is that at the Battle of the Citadel you don't have to kill everybody else in the system to "blow the bridge"  and escape through a Mass Relay just before the explosion.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:19 .


#1302
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 693 messages
Alright. Let me just clarify the end of ME1. No matter how you try to justify it, this is what the narrative and choices presented it.
1. Save the Council(You risk human lives as well as the rest of the galaxy to save the Ascension along with the Council. You get max paragon points.)
2. Focus on Sovereign(You do everything you can to make sure that Sovereign goes down and make sure the galaxy is safe even if the Destiny Ascension is lost. 8 Paragon points and 9 Renegade points.
3. Let the Council die.(This is the one where you let the council die to leave humanity in a place to rule the galaxy afterwards. Max renegade points.)

Personally, this is where I feel Bioware didn't really have a full grasp, and they still fully don't on what they want renegade to be since the only choices should have been the first 2.

Also, for those who say Sovereign needed an organic or something to access the citadel.  Why the heck would the reapers build something they can't personally access themselves.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:11 .


#1303
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Thompson family wrote...

The significant difference,clearly, is that at the Battle of the Citadel you don't have to kill everybody else in the system to "blow the bridge"  and escape through a Mass Relay just before the explosion.


Which should make the choice to sacrifice the Council a lot easier.

#1304
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

The significant difference,clearly, is that at the Battle of the Citadel you don't have to kill everybody else in the system to "blow the bridge"  and escape through a Mass Relay just before the explosion.


Which should make the choice to sacrifice the Council a lot easier.


But not necessary.

If sacrificing the Council was necessary to "blow the bridge," you'd have a point here.

#1305
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Thompson family wrote...

But not necessary.

If sacrificing the Council was necessary to "blow the bridge," you'd have a point here.


...but you are meta-gaming. At the time your Shepard makes the choice how does he know whether it is necessary or not?

#1306
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages
Your point is that the increased risk of saving the Council is an unnecessary risk. I respect that. My argument is that blowing that particular bridge alone will not stop the Reapers. A united response is everybody's better change, so my Shep chose to accept the longer-term gain (or the prospect of it) at the cost of some immediate risk.

#1307
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages
Obviously, our last two replies passed each other in the ether.

#1308
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 693 messages

Thompson family wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

The significant difference,clearly, is that at the Battle of the Citadel you don't have to kill everybody else in the system to "blow the bridge"  and escape through a Mass Relay just before the explosion.


Which should make the choice to sacrifice the Council a lot easier.


But not necessary.

If sacrificing the Council was necessary to "blow the bridge," you'd have a point here.

To be fair, I don't think it would have made much of a difference in Arrival, if the reapers arrived then, or when ME3 starts by the look of it unless some species says it started preparing in the last six months.  And for a reason that's not contrary to what's already been stated when the council said they didn't believe in the reapers and refused Shepard any type of aid.

#1309
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Also, for those who say Sovereign needed an organic or something to access the citadel. Why the heck would the reapers build something they can't personally access themselves.

The Reapers have a fair few holes in their defenses and are both arrogant and complacent.

#1310
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

And for a reason that's not contrary to what's already been stated when the council said they didn't believe in the reapers and refused Shepard any type of aid.

What, politicians lying? Shock and horror.

#1311
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

...but you are meta-gaming. At the time your Shepard makes the choice how does he know whether it is necessary or not?


No, I am not because the first Shep I played (and, by the way, all subsequent ones) saved the Council because the Reapers would be foolish to leave themselves only one way to get back.

#1312
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Thompson family wrote...

Your point is that the increased risk of saving the Council is an unnecessary risk.


Yes. With what is at stake it is reckless and irresponsible to not do everything in your power to reduce the risks as much as possible.

Thompson family wrote...

I respect that. My argument is that blowing that particular bridge alone will not stop the Reapers. A united response is everybody's better change, so my Shep chose to accept the longer-term gain (or the prospect of it) at the cost of some immediate risk.


Your argument misses the entire ****ing point.

How the hell do you place so much value on the ****ing Council? So much that you'd rather everybody die RIGHT NOW then survive and fight on later when they'll have...

1.) Had time to form a new Council

2.) Had time build more ships

3.) Had time to develop new technologies including reverse engineering Reaper technologies


Your "argument" makes no sense and does not hold up to any kind scrutiny. It fails because as I said it does not actually relate to the issue at hand. For the chance at a long term gain that you have no reason to believe is even necessary you are risking the loss of EVERYTHING right now.

#1313
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Thompson family wrote...

No, I am not because the first Shep I played (and, by the way, all subsequent ones) saved the Council because the Reapers would be foolish to leave themselves only one way to get back.


IF YOU FAIL TO STOP SOVEREIGN THE REAPERS WILL NOT NEED ANOTHER WAY BACK. THEY'LL BE BACK RIGHT THEN AND THERE. GAME OVER. THE REAPERS WIN.

#1314
Labrev

Labrev
  • Members
  • 2 237 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

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!!!"


When has anybody indicated that? I think you're just a ****head.


You don't have to say it, your endless whine-fests say it all.

Old complaint: paragons get to have their cake and eat it! (as if a messenger for the rachni queen is infalliable and the decision is subject to no backfire whatsoever... oh wait I'm sorry, the object is to whine/stomp-feet not think about things reasonably, forget I said anything)
New complaint: we're getting the same treatment as paragons... omg why???

It's clear that until you get total victory - and - paragon punishment that anything else you get from the game will never be good enough.

Don't call me names, Saphra. I can school your pathetic self to hell and back so what'll that make you?

#1315
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

HiroVoid wrote...

To be fair, I don't think it would have made much of a difference in Arrival, if the reapers arrived then, or when ME3 starts by the look of it unless some species says it started preparing in the last six months.  And for a reason that's not contrary to what's already been stated when the council said they didn't believe in the reapers and refused Shepard any type of aid.


That's quite true, but the point of contention between SD and myself is that the decisions Shepard faced at the Citadel and at "the Project" were "exactly" the same.

However, to repeat, you're absolutely correct that the space-faring Organics has not benefitted much at all from Shep putting the Reaper invasion off by a few months, from what we know.

#1316
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 693 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

And for a reason that's not contrary to what's already been stated when the council said they didn't believe in the reapers and refused Shepard any type of aid.

What, politicians lying? Shock and horror.

So they just keep letting Shepard working for a terroist group instead of it just going
Shepard: Hey.  Collectors are working for reapers.  Colonies are vanishing.  I need some aid.  Not even a fleet, just a ship, intel, and whatever'll do.
Council: Sure.  We'll help you since we know the reapers exist like we said at the end of the last game.

....There really should have been a choice to work between factions, or choose between the council and Cerberus in ME2....

As for not being able to access the citadel....what does arrogance have to do with making something you can't personally use.  If it's arrogance, I guess that means they have emotions that'll be shown and proven in ME3 instead of pure logic.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:33 .


#1317
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Don't call me names, Saphra. I can school your pathetic self to hell and back so what'll that make you?


Sure you can, sweety.

#1318
GodWood

GodWood
  • Members
  • 7 954 messages

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
It's clear that until you get total victory - and - paragon punishment that anything else you get from the game will never be good enough.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.

#1319
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3 693 messages
How about you'll both stop name-calling k?
As to 'Hah yes reapers', you're making yourself look childish. Saphra, you too when you do so. It's also against forum rules.

#1320
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

No, I am not because the first Shep I played (and, by the way, all subsequent ones) saved the Council because the Reapers would be foolish to leave themselves only one way to get back.


IF YOU FAIL TO STOP SOVEREIGN THE REAPERS WILL NOT NEED ANOTHER WAY BACK. THEY'LL BE BACK RIGHT THEN AND THERE. GAME OVER. THE REAPERS WIN.



Why are you capitalizing and underlining the obvious?

You contend that my decision to save the Council was meta-gaming. I replied that it was not because I chose to have my Shep save the Council in the first game of ME1 I ever played and told you exactly why.

#1321
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Thompson family wrote...

Why are you capitalizing and underlining the obvious?


I keep repeating it and bolding it because you just don't seem to get it no matter how many times it is stated. If you don't stop Sovereign you gain nothing. Instead you lose everything. Everything. That includes the Council.

The Council is replaceable as are many other things with time. The galaxy is not replaceable. If Sovereign opens that relay the Reapers arrive, you die, and shortly thereafter everyone else dies too.

Thompson family wrote...

You contend that my decision to save the Council was meta-gaming. I replied that it was not because I chose to have my Shep save the Council in the first game of ME1 I ever played and told you exactly why.


Maybe you aren't meta-gaming, maybe your Shepard is just a moron.

Mine saved them the first time too, but later when I discussed the decision with others and thought about it myself I realized it was a bad call and not one he would likely make.

My first run of ME1 was distinctly (and disturbingly) Paragon.

#1322
Sgt Stryker

Sgt Stryker
  • Members
  • 2 590 messages

Thompson family wrote...
Why are you capitalizing and underlining the obvious?


So everyone knows that this is SRS BSNS. Obviously. Man, am I glad I drank copious amounts of Killian's before reading this thread.

#1323
capn233

capn233
  • Members
  • 17 383 messages
Ah, the good old Renegade Brigade...

HiroVoid wrote...

Alright. Let me just clarify the end of ME1. No matter how you try to justify it, this is what the narrative and choices presented it.
1. Save the Council(You risk human lives as well as the rest of the galaxy to save the Ascension along with the Council. You get max paragon points.)
2. Focus on Sovereign(You do everything you can to make sure that Sovereign goes down and make sure the galaxy is safe even if the Destiny Ascension is lost. 8 Paragon points and 9 Renegade points.
3. Let the Council die.(This is the one where you let the council die to leave humanity in a place to rule the galaxy afterwards. Max renegade points.)

Yeah these are the options on the dialogue wheel, of course with small editorials, but more or less accurate.

Personally, this is where I feel Bioware didn't really have a full grasp, and they still fully don't on what they want renegade to be since the only choices should have been the first 2.

I disagree.  They know exactly what the renegade is supposed to be, except that the Renegade Brigade invented a romanticized version of them as pure pragmatists and strategists, when they are as likely to have their judgement clouded by pettiness and vindictiveness as the paragon is by naivete.  Look at the renegade interactions with other characters.  In this instance look at his interaction with the council.  Why not take this opportunity to let the council get what's coming to them?  I mean, they didn't listen to Shepard about the threat.  They stonewalled you and convinced Udina to relieve you.

At any rate, if you want to focus on just the paragon and neutral choice so be it.  When you reach the controls and get comms back the actual situation and question that Joker poses to Shepard is whether or not to move in immediately and assist the Citadel fleet to cover Ascension, or sit on their hands near the relay until the Citadel is open. "Come in now to save the Destiny Ascension or hold back?"

Shepard doesn't really have all of the information to actually make what would be a perfectly informed decision. You don't know how many ships you might lose to save the Ascension, you don't know how long until you get the arms open, you don't know how much firepower you need to take out Sovi, you don't know really know the disposition of the Geth and Citadel fleets as a whole as they relate to assistance and hindrance in defeating Sovi.

Most of us that like the save the council option figure if you move in as soon as possible you can assist taking out the Geth which will free Citadel ships to help fire on Sovi. No the Ascension is not included in this, they are out of the fight. But there are plenty of Turian ships left.  Saying that the CItadel fleet would be able to hold off the Geth is a major assumption you are making if you take concentrate on Sovereign.  That the Geth won't break from the Citadel fleet to engage the 5th when they attack Sovereign is also a major assumption.  Perhaps a massively incorrect one as their function was to escort and support Sovereign.  Continuing along this path of "logic" it is assumed that the remaining Citadel forces would not assist the 5th to take out Sovi after you cover the Ascension's withdrawal.

Also, for those who say Sovereign needed an organic or something to access the citadel.  Why the heck would the reapers build something they can't personally access themselves.

It's clear he needed an organic to bypass the Citadel defenses.  Clearly he could not make it from the relay into the Citadel before the arms were closed.  I don't really know why this is even discussed, the game lays this out.  Saren has to get onto the station to prevent the arms from being closed before Sovereign can dock.  That was why Saren was looking for the Conduit most of the game.  This is a fairly major plot point.

Modifié par capn233, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:48 .


#1324
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

With what is at stake it is reckless and irresponsible to not do everything in your power to reduce the risks as much as possible.


Your approach reduces the immediate risk. My approach reduces the longer-term risk.


Your argument misses the entire ****ing point.

How the hell do you place so much value on the ****ing Council? So much that you'd rather everybody die RIGHT NOW then survive and fight on later when they'll have...

1.) Had time to form a new Council

2.) Had time build more ships

3.) Had time to develop new technologies including reverse engineering Reaper technologies


Your "argument" makes no sense and does not hold up to any kind scrutiny. It fails because as I said it does not actually relate to the issue at hand. For the chance at a long term gain that you have no reason to believe is even necessary you are risking the loss of EVERYTHING right now.


See my earlier post about how I thought from the very first game that the Reapers would be foolish to give themselves only one way to return. I will not apologize for having been right.

As for the lack of preparation, I will point out that my Shep couldn't do much to find further proof or support Anderson -- being dead for two years.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 novembre 2011 - 06:49 .


#1325
Thompson family

Thompson family
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

You contend that my decision to save the Council was meta-gaming. I replied that it was not because I chose to have my Shep save the Council in the first game of ME1 I ever played and told you exactly why.


Maybe you aren't meta-gaming, maybe your Shepard is just a moron.


No, SD: The Reapers would have been morons to have left themselves only one way back.

Mine saved them the first time too, but later when I discussed the decision with others and thought about it myself I realized it was a bad call and not one he would likely make.


Then clearly I think you and your associates talked yourselves out of a good decision.

My first run of ME1 was distinctly (and disturbingly) Paragon.


Interesting.