1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Homebound]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Such are the limitations of playing Paragade. But then if you play your cards right, you might get situations like Tali's trial where if u helped veetor and kept Reegar alive, you wont need full paragon/renegade.

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...
I hate the way quoting works sometimes...Anyway, your statement about  squadmates warning of left over Geth ships is false.

Yep. There's no such thing.

They're just warning about Sovereign and give you their "opinion" about what should be done about the Council. I put opinion in quotation marks, because they don't really have an opinion, since they're just filling the opposite side of the other squadmate's argument, regardless of their actual opinion of the Council.

[Homebound]

Saphra Deden wrote...

jreezy wrote...

-snip-

-snip-

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.

Right. So if I insit on playing full Renegade then let me get ****ed over in the times when a little compassion/diplomacy/trust would have gone a long way and let me sail high in those times where the heavy handed/distrustful/ruthless approach was the best course of action.

Thats why I dont play full renegade. you end up needlessly pissing people off that you shouldnt have.
Which can translate rather well in life actually. Treat others badly, most likely, bad things are coming your way. Not to say everyone will play nice just because you do, but it sure does help.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...


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.

Umm... sure. They'll just repair all that damage to their ship in a couple of minutes of downtime and be back at 100%.

Also what indicates the DA is fleeing is the captain's orders at the start of the battle. You know... when she said this:

"Abandon the Citadel! Evacuate the Council!"

Not the "Abandon the Citadel" part. This part is key.

It's not all that much damage. Their main drive core is offline, not destroyed. The Normandy's drive core has been shut down before and been fine in a matter of minutes. Same with the kinetic barriers; it's not like the emitters were destroyed; they were just reduced to 40%.

And does Shepard hear the 'Abandon the Citadel' thing? Even if he does, things change in battle. He easily could have assumed the Ascension would help out in the battle if saved. It is a perfectly valid reason to save the Council.

[Labrev]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Yeah that's called metagaming. Textbook, at that.

Renegade Shepard only knows the consequence of his actions, not of the ones he does not take that the players makes. This idea of "punishing" paragon players to validate renegades is a lame idea because the only relevant consequences are what happens, not what doesn't. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of morality vs. morality rather than objective decision-making (though it still does somewhat no thanks to the game's own P/R system, but ultimately the player is still accountable for their own actions in the end, as well as the resulting consequences good or bad). Or player vs. player/BSN morality wars in a universe created around single-player RPG'ing.

And again, if you need out-of-game validation to feel okay about your in-game decisions, how "renegade" are you really?

The idea that paragons are the only ones getting results while renegades don't also is an overreaction, to silly things like the rachni queen's messenger and the old-council cameo which has no significance to the game and actually one potential negative that those who take renegade path needn't worry about.

A messenger for the rachni-queen is not infalliable nor guarantees a positive outcome. It could very well be that while the rachni do contribute as an ally, it will also hurt when rachni drones get indoctrinated and/or huskified. Or, it could backfire completely. The leaks are suggesting one of these things happening.

No one can say so definitively at this point that only paragons get the results as everyone wants to insist. The leaked script may not be final, but that they are considering not making the outcome total victory for paragons should at least put this idea of "have your cake and eat it" to rest at least for the time being.

But it won't, of course. Whiners gonna whine. Once you've gotten rolling you can't stop doing it, and the renegade die-hards have taken to whining like crack to a methhead. They practially can't function without doing it at this point.

If it turns out that way afterall with paragons saving the world with no sacrifices made, I'll come back here and eat my words. But right now, it's just the same old overreaction from a side that just enjoys feeling victimized by big bad Bioware.


*edit* emphasis, jo.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 24 novembre 2011 - 08:47 .

[Sgt Stryker]

111987 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...


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.

Umm... sure. They'll just repair all that damage to their ship in a couple of minutes of downtime and be back at 100%.

Also what indicates the DA is fleeing is the captain's orders at the start of the battle. You know... when she said this:

"Abandon the Citadel! Evacuate the Council!"

Not the "Abandon the Citadel" part. This part is key.

It's not all that much damage. Their main drive core is offline, not destroyed. The Normandy's drive core has been shut down before and been fine in a matter of minutes. Same with the kinetic barriers; it's not like the emitters were destroyed; they were just reduced to 40%.

And does Shepard hear the 'Abandon the Citadel' thing? Even if he does, things change in battle. He easily could have assumed the Ascension would help out in the battle if saved. It is a perfectly valid reason to save the Council.

Ah, but a drive core and a ship's drives are not the same, are they? The drive core is just the eezo core that creates mass effect fields (e.g. artificial gravity, kinetic barriers, FTL capability). The drives are the engines.

[Labrev]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

It's not a bad system, not the idea of it anyway. I've long hated it, but have grown to be OK with it.

Intimidation should work only if the instigator is actually intimidating, that happens by displaying the qualities of it frequently enough. Charm should only work if the instigator is charismatic. It's a sound system.

Only real issues with it are (1) inconsistencies in what's paragon/renegade; (2) WAYYY too many morality points that need be accumulated from place to place; (3) disputes that are all but unresolveable without a high score on one side; (4) no good way for players to measure their morality/persuation abilities (the morality meters are not accurate given the system's % requirements).

Fixes I can only hope they'd try to make this time around, but it's probably too late. Nonetheless, a little failure to persuade in the game is okay, most RPGs are like that. In some games, like Fallout, persuation is left completely to chance at times (and somewhat to skill, but nonetheless).

[Zatwu]

I think the Paragon/Renegade resolutions we've seen so far are both just as good for different thing. The Paragon results tend to be more idealistic with sunshine, rainbows and lollipops, and everyone getting along. The Renegade decisions tend to be more sour with more dead bodies, nastiness and bigotry. There is no best decision, there's just "Do you want your universe to be more Renegade or more Paragon?" I expect the endings will continue the same way. If you're unsatisfied then that's a sign that you're more of a Paragon than you thought.

Modifié par Zatwu, 24 novembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[Someone With Mass]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

It's not a bad system, not the idea of it anyway. I've long hated it, but have grown to be OK with it.

Intimidation should work only if the instigator is actually intimidating, that happens by displaying the qualities of it frequently enough. Charm should only work if the instigator is charismatic. It's a sound system.

Only real issues with it are (1) inconsistencies in what's paragon/renegade; (2) WAYYY too many morality points that need be accumulated from place to place; (3) disputes that are all but unresolveable without a high score on one side; (4) no good way for players to measure their morality/persuation abilities (the morality meters are not accurate given the system's % requirements).

Fixes I can only hope they'd try to make this time around, but it's probably too late. Nonetheless, a little failure to persuade in the game is okay, most RPGs are like that. In some games, like Fallout, persuation is left completely to chance at times (and somewhat to skill, but nonetheless).

Yeah. While it's a good thought, the execution could've been better, like with the sometimes very jarring inconsistencies. I hope they'll get it better in future games.

[ubermensch007]

A paragon decision or two that I definitly see not having a good outcome.Is letting either Maelon or the other Teltin Facility Survivor live.

I might have gave Maelon a chance to redeem himself, if not for that sh!t eatin grin he gives.When Mordin has the gun in his face and Shep talks him out of killing him.

The other Jack.I see killing him as a mercy really... That poor soul, is in a very dark place that he may not have the strength to fight his way out of.He struck me as the unfortunate sort of victimized person who as a child was molested and now as an adult was about to become a molestor.(This doesn't always happen of course) But in his case, this was cleary the path he was going to take, unless Shepard and Jack stopped him.

[Gerrymander-er]

ubermensch007 wrote...

A paragon decision or two that I definitly see not having a good outcome.Is letting either Maelon or the other Teltin Facility Survivor live.

I might have gave Maelon a chance to redeem himself, if not for that sh!t eatin grin he gives.When Mordin has the gun in his face and Shep talks him out of killing him.

The other Jack.I see killing him as a mercy really... That poor soul, is in a very dark place that he may not have the strength to fight his way out of.He struck me as the unfortunate sort of victimized person who as a child was molested and now as an adult was about to become a molestor.(This doesn't always happen of course) But in his case, this was cleary the path he was going to take, unless Shepard and Jack stopped him.

agreed. i wish in real life the populations of asylums, women's shelters, orphanages, and youth homes could be quickly and efficiently be liquidated; the world would be much safer .

too bad we cant mention stuff from the leak. the rachni outcome in it was so stupid i really wish i could vent about it. why even offer a choice if thats the way things are going to be handled?

[CerberusWarrior]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Yeah that's called metagaming. Textbook, at that.

Renegade Shepard only knows the consequence of his actions, not of the ones he does not take that the players makes. This idea of "punishing" paragon players to validate renegades is a lame idea because the only relevant consequences are what happens, not what doesn't. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of morality vs. morality rather than objective decision-making (though it still does somewhat no thanks to the game's own P/R system, but ultimately the player is still accountable for their own actions in the end, as well as the resulting consequences good or bad). Or player vs. player/BSN morality wars in a universe created around single-player RPG'ing.

And again, if you need out-of-game validation to feel okay about your in-game decisions, how "renegade" are you really?

The idea that paragons are the only ones getting results while renegades don't also is an overreaction, to silly things like the rachni queen's messenger and the old-council cameo which has no significance to the game and actually one potential negative that those who take renegade path needn't worry about.

A messenger for the rachni-queen is not infalliable nor guarantees a positive outcome. It could very well be that while the rachni do contribute as an ally, it will also hurt when rachni drones get indoctrinated and/or huskified. Or, it could backfire completely. The leaks are suggesting one of these things happening.

No one can say so definitively at this point that only paragons get the results as everyone wants to insist. The leaked script may not be final, but that they are considering not making the outcome total victory for paragons should at least put this idea of "have your cake and eat it" to rest at least for the time being.

But it won't, of course. Whiners gonna whine. Once you've gotten rolling you can't stop doing it, and the renegade die-hards have taken to whining like crack to a methhead. They practially can't function without doing it at this point.

If it turns out that way afterall with paragons saving the world with no sacrifices made, I'll come back here and eat my words. But right now, it's just the same old overreaction from a side that just enjoys feeling victimized by big bad Bioware.


*edit* emphasis, jo.

  



Oh please the paragon fans got their wish they didn't like their shepard working with Cerberus in 2 and they all whined and cried about it and look what Bioware did in 3 . Yeah us renegades know Bioware is clearly on the side of paragons . we will see come March won't we but I bet its the same paragon filled game ME 2

[Harmless Citizen]

Paragade is the more logical way to play the game due to how binary the system is, oftentimes. The games seem to want one option (the paragon) to be not so much as naive or idealistic, but more willing to take risks for the sake of gaining possible allies. The renegade mitigates these risks by eliminating them. Legion's loyalty mission and the decision to save the Ascension or not are prime examples of this.

Unfortunately, paragons end up being portrayed as morally self-righteous (sometimes idiotically so), and renegades as tactless brutes who shoot, kill, and punch as many things possible.

That being said, I hardly see the "cut content" as punishment. If you shoot someone, of course they're not going to turn up later. That being said, the cameos in ME2 were laughable.

[Labrev]

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Yeah that's called metagaming. Textbook, at that.

Renegade Shepard only knows the consequence of his actions, not of the ones he does not take that the players makes. This idea of "punishing" paragon players to validate renegades is a lame idea because the only relevant consequences are what happens, not what doesn't. Otherwise, it becomes an issue of morality vs. morality rather than objective decision-making (though it still does somewhat no thanks to the game's own P/R system, but ultimately the player is still accountable for their own actions in the end, as well as the resulting consequences good or bad). Or player vs. player/BSN morality wars in a universe created around single-player RPG'ing.

And again, if you need out-of-game validation to feel okay about your in-game decisions, how "renegade" are you really?

The idea that paragons are the only ones getting results while renegades don't also is an overreaction, to silly things like the rachni queen's messenger and the old-council cameo which has no significance to the game and actually one potential negative that those who take renegade path needn't worry about.

A messenger for the rachni-queen is not infalliable nor guarantees a positive outcome. It could very well be that while the rachni do contribute as an ally, it will also hurt when rachni drones get indoctrinated and/or huskified. Or, it could backfire completely. The leaks are suggesting one of these things happening.

No one can say so definitively at this point that only paragons get the results as everyone wants to insist. The leaked script may not be final, but that they are considering not making the outcome total victory for paragons should at least put this idea of "have your cake and eat it" to rest at least for the time being.

But it won't, of course. Whiners gonna whine. Once you've gotten rolling you can't stop doing it, and the renegade die-hards have taken to whining like crack to a methhead. They practially can't function without doing it at this point.

If it turns out that way afterall with paragons saving the world with no sacrifices made, I'll come back here and eat my words. But right now, it's just the same old overreaction from a side that just enjoys feeling victimized by big bad Bioware.


*edit* emphasis, jo.

  



Oh please the paragon fans got their wish they didn't like their shepard working with Cerberus in 2 and they all whined and cried about it and look what Bioware did in 3 . Yeah us renegades know Bioware is clearly on the side of paragons . we will see come March won't we but I bet its the same paragon filled game ME 2

Let's count the stupid amount of times in the game you were warned that Cerberus would eventually betray you:

1.) Anderson warns you.
2.) Garrus warns you.
3.) Tali warns you.
4.) Mordin is obviously hiding something about his past with Cerberus, and lets on that he thinks they're only working with non-human crew out of desperation.
5.) Jack warns you.
6.) Generic squadmate not-named Jacob/Miranda warns you on Collector Vessel when EDI reveals TIM was behind the turian distress signal. All of them say that they should have known better than to trust Cerberus (except Grunt, who doesn't understand it).
7.) That TIM lied to your face about the turian distress signal.
8.) VS warns you (and turned out right about TIM/Cerberus tipping off about the colony getting attacked, just wrongly believed they were doing the abductions)
9.) That TIM didn't tell you he was behind it until a slip-of-the-tongue.
... and I haven't read the books/comics that would likely give even more examples.

The reason why the majority of fans didn't like working for Cerberus was because they didn't miss these blatant warning signs. And for warning signs to be there means they were planning this long before there was even a majority to pander to. There is no way in hell they did not have Cerberus betrayal in ME3 planned from the start.

This "paragons get their wish about Cerberus" BS is just that, BS, more material that renegade die-hards use to whine and carry on as they post away on Bioware Social Network claiming not to have any interest in the game anymore. Heh, right.

[ubermensch007]

jreezy wrote...

ubermensch007 wrote...

A paragon decision or two that I definitly see not having a good outcome.Is letting either Maelon or the other Teltin Facility Survivor live.

I might have gave Maelon a chance to redeem himself, if not for that sh!t eatin grin he gives.When Mordin has the gun in his face and Shep talks him out of killing him.

The other Jack.

Who the heck is that?

Aresh was his name, I think...

[HiroVoid]

Meh. My opinion on decisions is that each one should lead to different consequences. Not one that is made right or wrong, but ones that just lead to different outcomes.

*Looks at top of thread*
Ugh.  The geth focusing on DA, and the other crap.  This debate's seriously been going on since the old ME1 forums.....just out of curiosity, how many people were on that?  I'm a bit curious to see how many members are new and how many have been around for a long while now.

Also, I'm a bit wary to get involved in this debate since I'm fine with people seeing the Geth as a threat.  Here's a question though.  Did the geth flank and cause more casualties to the Alliance forces for those who didn't save the DA?

Modifié par HiroVoid, 06 décembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

It should be a no-brainer by now that the games have favored the Paragon choices (almost to a rediculous degree) over any other major choice.

The notion of "hard" choices is pretty much a joke now.

Now it's simply "Do you want the sunshine and bunnies result or the thunderstorm result? You'll know which outcome you'll get by the color of the choice... the situation and circumstances/odds are irrelevant as long as the colors are there."

What's so hard about that kind of choice? In this area, Bioware has failed to deliver the game they promised. The only decision that would be hard is if you had to break away from your ideal choice for the sake of the greater good from time to time. There has yet to be any such "greater good" for non-Paragon choices... Fact.

[HiroVoid]

[Mr. Gogeta34]

HiroVoid wrote...

Exactly... I went in expecting these kind of choices and consequences... They're simply not there... at all.

Still great games... but facts are what they are.

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It should be a no-brainer by now that the games have favored the Paragon choices (almost to a rediculous degree) over any other major choice.

The notion of "hard" choices is pretty much a joke now.

Now it's simply "Do you want the sunshine and bunnies result or the thunderstorm result? You'll know which outcome you'll get by the color of the choice... the situation and circumstances/odds are irrelevant as long as the colors are there."

What's so hard about that kind of choice? In this area, Bioware has failed to deliver the game they promised. The only decision that would be hard is if you had to break away from your ideal choice for the sake of the greater good from time to time. There has yet to be any such "greater good" for non-Paragon choices... Fact.

Oh, it's not "almost" anymore, it IS to a ridiculous degree. Look no further than "Grand Admiral" Balak leading a stronger Batarian ally for Paragon Shepard than his Renegade counterpart.

[Xilizhra]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It should be a no-brainer by now that the games have favored the Paragon choices (almost to a rediculous degree) over any other major choice.

The notion of "hard" choices is pretty much a joke now.

Now it's simply "Do you want the sunshine and bunnies result or the thunderstorm result? You'll know which outcome you'll get by the color of the choice... the situation and circumstances/odds are irrelevant as long as the colors are there."

What's so hard about that kind of choice? In this area, Bioware has failed to deliver the game they promised. The only decision that would be hard is if you had to break away from your ideal choice for the sake of the greater good from time to time. There has yet to be any such "greater good" for non-Paragon choices... Fact.

Oh, it's not "almost" anymore, it IS to a ridiculous degree. Look no further than "Grand Admiral" Balak leading a stronger Batarian ally for Paragon Shepard than his Renegade counterpart.

If any batarian leader would defy the Hegemony and refuse to submit to the Reapers, it's Balak.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

It should be a no-brainer by now that the games have favored the Paragon choices (almost to a rediculous degree) over any other major choice.

The notion of "hard" choices is pretty much a joke now.

Now it's simply "Do you want the sunshine and bunnies result or the thunderstorm result? You'll know which outcome you'll get by the color of the choice... the situation and circumstances/odds are irrelevant as long as the colors are there."

What's so hard about that kind of choice? In this area, Bioware has failed to deliver the game they promised. The only decision that would be hard is if you had to break away from your ideal choice for the sake of the greater good from time to time. There has yet to be any such "greater good" for non-Paragon choices... Fact.

Oh, it's not "almost" anymore, it IS to a ridiculous degree. Look no further than "Grand Admiral" Balak leading a stronger Batarian ally for Paragon Shepard than his Renegade counterpart.

If any batarian leader would defy the Hegemony and refuse to submit to the Reapers, it's Balak.

Because obviously you of all people saw that one coming.

Please, don't act like such a loon.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 07 décembre 2011 - 12:44 .