1768 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The DA was no shape to do anything and it was fleeing. Why would it turn around and help all of a sudden? It has precious cargo, remember?

Well as far as Shepard knew, the DA was still capable of fighting. It was calling for help, but that doesn't mean that it still couldn't be a game-changer in the battle if it could break free of the Geth. As to why it would help all of the sudden; because before, it had no way of reaching Sovereign (because the Citadel arms were closed). Now that the arms were open, it may very well decide to attack.

HiroVoid wrote...

111987 wrote...

Paragons
could justify saving the Council not because of the Council's
importance, but because of the importance of the Destiny Ascension.
After all, the DA is the most powerful dreadnaught in the galaxy. Saving
it so that it could battle Sovereign makes sense to me (even though
that doesn't end up happening).

Dreadnought's are mostly good
at long range when entering a fight which is why it got completely
overwhelmed at close-range.  Still...yeah.  I suspect it probably could
have done a good amount of damage to Sovereign unless i'm missing
something.  Hopefully, we'll get to see it in some action in ME3.

Dreadnaught's
are mainly used at long range because of their main gun. However, they
have other weapons, such as smaller mass accelartors and GARDIAN lasers
and disruptor torpedoes that could have been used against Sovereign.

[capn233]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That is not meta-gaming. Your squadmates tell you that this may be the outcome before you make the choice.

Nice try.  They tell you that you should not waste reinforcements saving the council and that you should hold them back until the arms open to fight Sovereign.  They do not tell you that if you move to support the Ascension that there will still be Geth ships left.

Not that what your squadmates say in this situation should matter at all because they do not have insider info into the dispositions of the fleets anyway.

[Labrev]

GodWood wrote...

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.

No, I'm the only one who has been. Up to now, they've tried one thing and it wasn't good, then they did the opposite and it's still unfair.

The only thing they haven't done is both (victory for renegades, and at the total expense of paragons) and its pretty obvious at this point that it's the only thing left that will make the renegade die-hards satisfied.

[Labrev]

While I'm at it, I was sitting on this post cold for a while - got interrupted - but...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem with Renegades is that if you're always going to reward Paragons, you're screwing with them because the Renegade outcome is to avoid one possible solution that the Paragon choice introduces. Therefore, by rewarding Paragons, you've invalidated the entire purpose for the Renegade choice.

Punishing the Paragon would vindicate the Renegade choice, as the possible backfiring which might occur doesn't occur and we're given the better scenario for one case. Why would you kill anybody if they're always nice? Why would you spare anybody if they're always evil? It's kind of the same thing, there needs to be a balance, something which the player can logically foreshadow everything (For example in ME2, with Wrex and curing the Genophage = His plan for the Krogan not working)

It's just a damn shame that no such thing occurs.

This is pretty pathetic coming from the side that pounds their chests about making the "hard choices."

If you take an action - renegade or paragon - through the course of the game, you have to (1) have a strong and rational reason for doing it; (2) accept responsibility for the consquences - good or bad.

When outcomes have no consequence at all, like killing Balak, there's no success or failure. It was a judgement call and you stand behind it. And that still holds true even if paragons get "rewarded" for taking an opposite choice (very loose use of the word "reward" because something like a cameo is rather meaningless no matter how much the die-hards want to insist they're rewards). Helena Blake becoming a social worker means nothing if you kill her because you have good reason to think she'd go back to a life of crime.

You act on principles, not game mechanics. If that's not enough for you - that you need a pat-on-the-back or need to know that players who did the opposite thing got punished - then so much for "we make the HARD choices!"

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Well as far as Shepard knew, the DA was still capable of fighting.

No, the damage report indicated the DA was basically dead in the "water". Kinetic barriers and its main drives were offline or close to it. 

Nowhere does anyone say that to Shepard. I just rewatched the scene.

Shepard even says "We need to save the Ascension, no matter the cost". Perhaps Shepard was also hoping the DA would help fight Sovereign.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Nowhere does anyone say that to Shepard. I just rewatched the scene.

I'm pretty sure the scene is shot in such a way that it implies Shepard heard the transmission. When it is being made we see it from the DA point of view but Joker's line to Shepard indicates they were both listening.

Ah you're right; it's an audio transmission that Shepard hears. "Main drives offline, kinetic barriers at 40%."

Regardless, that doesn't change anything. It doesn't imply the DA was trying to flee, or that it couldn't restore functionality if aided.

[Labrev]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

This is pretty pathetic coming from the side that pounds their chests about making the "hard choices."

They make the hard choices, the sacrifices, to avoid more problems down the road. To avert worse catasrophes.

Ex: A renegade kills the rachni queen to avoid another rachni war or otherwise prevent the rachni from threatening more lives.

Ex: A renegade blows up the Heretics because they don't trust the geth or that the rewrite will stick.

Ex: A renegade kills or arrests Balak so that he cannot repeat his actions in the future.

Ex: A renegade saves the Collector base so that the galaxy will be better prepared when the Reapers invade.

Ex: A renegade keeps David in Overlord so that the weapon can be used against the geth in the future if necessary.

Ex: A renegade sells Legion to Cerberus so that they can develop better weapons to fight the Reapers.

Ex. A renegade doesn't let the batarians leave (the ones threatening Daniel) because they might shoot him in the back.

However despite the Paragon never making these sacrifices and taking these great risks the worse catastrophes never manifest.

Dave is saying they should manifest some of the time.

What is unreasonable about that?

That is reasonable. However, at least two of those things are quite explicitly in the leaks, and die-hards are whining about them. Why? Now it's become "our choices don't matter!" because they have to do the same things paragons have to do for the opposite decision. But if it were the opposite and only paragons got those assignments, even if for the wrong reasons, then we'd be hearing "they withheld gameplay content from renegades!" right now instead.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...
Ah you're right; it's an audio transmission that Shepard hears. "Main drives offline, kinetic barriers at 40%."

Regardless, that doesn't change anything. It doesn't imply the DA was trying to flee, or that it couldn't restore functionality if aided.

Hell, we've seen the Normandy's drive core fail at least twice and they got out of it just fine when needed.

That's why we have engineers that can fix the problem when it occurs.

[Someone With Mass]

Thompson family wrote...

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.

And then some people are expecting to be rewarded greatly in the future by being so paranoid. Like popping Shiala in the head. Did people really expect that someone would show up around three years later and say: "Good job shooting that unarmed asari in the back of the head" or what?

If you deal with the problem there and then, it'd be a little pointless to say that they should bring it up again at another time when it really doesn't matter.

Being able to deal with the problem then is your reward.

By the way, I personally don't need the game to tell me that I did a good job. I know that I did a good job, because I was able to do what I wanted to.

I also never expected the game to radically change, depending on every single choice there is.

[hangmans tree]

answering the OP:
I would see it as a matter of renegade being the easy way of eliminating obstacles, something that must be done no matter how many bodies and human/alien rights are trampled in the process. its not like The Great Evil, its more like Machiavellian way to go.
Paragon should be about the extra mile to secure someones elses interest, giving a damn that somebody else might be cought up in the process of whatever must be done to "secure assets". But sometimes when you try to protect all, spreading your resources thin and far between you lose more than could be gained... ME3 could reflect that in some minor but significant way methinks

[Ieldra]

@Hah yes Reapers:
We are not complaining about the results of single decisions, but about a pattern of consequences of decisions.

If you, for instance, take a gamble with the Rachni and let the queen live, and then she later becomes an ally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nor with any other consequence if you take it separately from others.

Things become problematic if there is a consistent pattern over many decisions where Paragons always get the best result without significant drawback while Renegades always get the moral fallout of their decisions but the consequences their decision was made to avoid never manifest for the Paragons.

Take a gamble with a Paragon decision and get the best result once, that's 1:0 for Paragons, OK. Twice? 2:0. Still OK. Thrice? Things are starting to get suspicious. Ten times? 10:0? WTF - someone's clearly rigged the lottery of fate. And when you finish the game and find that *everywhere* but in one minor decision (Elnora, which wasn't really a gamble because you know beforehand) where Paragon or Renegade is more than a style of achieving the same thing, Paragons can have their cake and eat it (i.e. save the day without having to sacrifice anything) while Renegades get neither appreciation *nor* results, you can't avoid feeling cheated.

I'd like to have one major, big-picture affecting decision that breaks this pattern with no way of wriggling out of it by persuasion. One such decision where the Renegade option was proven strategically superior because the Paragon's more morality-driven option comes at the expense of strategy. If I make a Renegade decision, I know that morality is not on my side. I make the decision anyway because I think the expected results are worth it. If they *never* are, the Renegade path is invalidated. If they *always* are, the Paragon path is invalidated. There needs to be a balance.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 novembre 2011 - 09:38 .

[Ieldra]

Sorry, double post. See above

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 novembre 2011 - 09:37 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Do you know what is even more counter-productive to stopping the Reapers? Letting them win because you don't have the forces necessary to kill Sovereign. 

Sovereign opens the relay. The Reapers pour through and everybody, including the Council, dies. Game over. Reapers win.

It is the same as Arrival. If you don't blow up the relay the Reapers will pour into the galaxy and all those colonists, and everyone else, will die. Game over. Reapers win.

Every goddamn Paragon player on this forum is a hypocrite. You will conduct any moral and mental gymnastics necessary in a vain attempt to justify your hypocrisy. It is disgusting. It is why you deserve no respect.

You have no integrity.

It's really funny watching you telling everyone that argues against you that they're biased and then go on this little hate rant.

Hypocritical, but funny.

[Homebound]

I think there are some situations where a Paragon's light touch is woefully inadequate. And I think there are some situations where a Renegade's heavy-handedness is idiotic.

Thats why I play Paragade. When you play Paragade, you get the best of both worlds.

[Someone With Mass]

Hellbound555 wrote...

I think there are some situations where a Paragon's light touch is woefully inadequate. And I think there are some situations where a Renegade's heavy-handedness is idiotic.

Thats why I play Paragade. When you play Paragade, you get the best of both worlds.

Unless you run into a situation where you need a lot of points if you're doing more than just making it 80-20/70-30 for either sides.

Which is why I think they should scrap that system entirely and let the player play more freely.