1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The really funny thing is that it started the second TIM was treated "bad". Then the game was nothing but gutter filth.

It's not because it's just TIM, it's because it's done to an entire faction and morality. TIM just happens to be a convenient flag to rally behind.

If there was a Cerberus path of sorts, and then TIM (the person, not his organisation) turns on the player near the end, there would hardly be as much of a problem.

The Renegade morality is to sacrifice ideals to get the job done. Cerberus, it seems, is one of those ideals.

[HiroVoid]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

[quote]Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Of course, it should be a war story after all, not some kind of crappy romance simulator that also allows to save the galaxy at no cost.[/quote]
Incorrect.  It allows you to save the galaxy for $60 bought new.

My question is, why did you have your heart set on being able to side with Cerberus in the first place?  I never felt like they were being set up as a future ally.  Then again, feeling is subjective.[/quote]
[/quote]
It may have been due to the fact that TIM was supposed to be set up as a grey character with one of the devs even bragging about the fact that he's not evil or good....when it doesn't feel like it's set up that way at all.  Goals are usually alright, but the way they portray the organization's methods really don't make them look grey.....

[RamirezWolfen]

I never thought we could side with Cerberus anyway. They always had that "evil terrorist organization" vibe. Especially TIM's dialogue if you save the base.

Modifié par RamirezWolfen, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:12 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

[quote]Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Of course, it should be a war story after all, not some kind of crappy romance simulator that also allows to save the galaxy at no cost.[/quote]
Incorrect.  It allows you to save the galaxy for $60 bought new.

My question is, why did you have your heart set on being able to side with Cerberus in the first place?  I never felt like they were being set up as a future ally.  Then again, feeling is subjective.[/quote][/quote]Because I expected actual player agency, decisions actually meaning something.

Like how one DAO playthrough allows you to side with the Templars and Alistair, and you can go Mage + Loghain in the other. Or how the Witcher series allows the player to side with either the Order/Blue Stripes and the Scoia'tael.

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
It's not because it's just TIM, it's because it's done to an entire faction and morality. TIM just happens to be a convenient flag to rally behind.

If there was a Cerberus path of sorts, and then TIM (the person, not his organisation) turns on the player near the end, there would hardly be as much of a problem.

Well, when TIM is the organization (and the guy has Reaper tech in his face) I don't really see how it could've ended in a different manner.

Don't really care either, since his usefulness pretty much ended when the Reapers arrived, and I thought so way before the leak or the reveal of his private army too.

[Quole]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Quole wrote...

I have lurked long enough to conclude whos stupid, Admiral.

Out of curiousity, on a scale of one to ten, ten being evil genius and one being vegetable, where would you rate me?

Hmm. Perhaps a 4. You should be proud, the average on the BSN is 3.

[GodWood]

I'm still not sure why people are against some renegade decisions turning out better and some paragon decisions backfiring (and vice versa).


People are just petty I guess.

[Labrev]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

BTW, if it weren't for the Rachni Queen being pulled out of a Repaer ass, then then renegade die-hards would instead be complaining about how paragons get the mission and they don't. We've seen that song-and-dance before.

They shouldn't have implemented this kind of ****ty scenario to begin with, Paragon or Renegade.

The only decisions that really warrant exclusive missions are both end of game ones.

What scenario, creating missions out of previous choices?


... I don't know what to say to that. I don't know how any sane person would argue against having missions that (1) show the impact resulting in previous decisions we've made, even if with minimal overall difference because the RENEGADES whined to now end how they got robbed in ME2 (2) add gameplay content that is a unique change of pace from the war at hand while remaining relevant overall (3) add RPG/decision-making content that is relevant to the main story.

Is there anything left that wouldn't completely upset you?

[Medhia Nox]

@Kaiser Shepard: I haven't read the leaks - so, the ending of the Renegade is exactly the same as the ending of the Paragon?

The exclusion of Cerberus does not make "no human agency" - I personally would have had Barla Von as one of my "uber operatives" in ME 2 (to supe up my ship with his vast resources) - but, nobody thought to give me that option, was Bioware being lazy?

=========

@Godwood: I want everyting you chose to turn out bad - how's that for uber-edgy pettiness? 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:12 .

[BlueMagitek]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

[quote]Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Of course, it should be a war story after all, not some kind of crappy romance simulator that also allows to save the galaxy at no cost.[/quote]
Incorrect.  It allows you to save the galaxy for $60 bought new.

My question is, why did you have your heart set on being able to side with Cerberus in the first place?  I never felt like they were being set up as a future ally.  Then again, feeling is subjective.[/quote]
[/quote]

I don't know about siding with Cerberus, but I expected them to be allies (of a varying degree of effectiveness, depending on your actions in ME 2 & the status of the CB).  And if they were going to turn against you, it'd be after the Reapers were dealt with.

But then, it'd be nice to have different factions to side with for power in the end, even in Bioware does choose a canon ending. 

[Quole]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Quole wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Quole wrote...

Spoken like a true idiot.

Nah, Dave's cool.

He's Canadian, so that's a major point in his favour right there.

Being Canadian means nothing in this conversation.

Sure it does; being Canadian makes you much more likely to be amazing and brilliant. Need I also point out that Bioware is Canadian?

Indeed it does... but he isnt. So if anything.. its an insult. Perhaps youa re right, it does matter in this conversaation.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The really funny thing is that it started the second TIM was treated "bad". Then the game was nothing but gutter filth.

It's not because it's just TIM, it's because it's done to an entire faction and morality. TIM just happens to be a convenient flag to rally behind.

If there was a Cerberus path of sorts, and then TIM (the person, not his organisation) turns on the player near the end, there would hardly be as much of a problem.

The Renegade morality is to sacrifice ideals to get the job done. Cerberus, it seems, is one of those ideals.

On the contrary, the Renegade path is mostly about preserving ideals.

RamirezWolfen wrote...

I never thought we could side with Cerberus anyway. They always had that "evil terrorist organization vibe." Especially TIM's dialogue if you save the base.

Kotor allowed you to side with and take over the sith. And remember that "evil" is just a word for "what I don't agree with".

[Quole]

AdmiralCheez, I still consider you one of the better forum dwellers though.

[BlueMagitek]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Kotor allowed you to side with and take over the sith. And remember that "evil" is just a word for "what I don't agree with".

That isn't quite true; in the Star Wars Universe, the Sith are literally a cancer on the galaxy. >_>

[GodWood]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Godwood: I want everyting you chose to turn out bad - how's that for uber-edgy pettiness? 

That's hardcore uber-edgy man.

It's also what happens.

[RamirezWolfen]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

I never thought we could side with Cerberus anyway. They always had that "evil terrorist organization vibe." Especially TIM's dialogue if you save the base.

Kotor allowed you to side with and take over the sith. And remember that "evil" is just a word for "what I don't agree with".

Cerberus and the Sith are a bit different though.

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

I'm still not sure why people are against some renegade decisions turning out better and some paragon decisions backfiring (and vice versa).


People are just petty I guess.

I couldn't care less what happens to Renegade decisions. What does bug me is you caring what happens to Paragon decisions when you don't take them.

[AdmiralCheez]

Quole wrote...

Hmm. Perhaps a 4. You should be proud, the average on the BSN is 3.

Damn.  Here I thought I was an 11 for sure.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

I couldn't care less what happens to Renegade decisions. What does bug me is you caring what happens to Paragon decisions when you don't take them.

Because the Renegade decision exists to avoid possible Paragon decision consequences, therefore any consequences for the Paragon decision would make the Renegade decision justified.

Except that never happens.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra - before, it was - "there cannot be Paragon AND Renegade victories because that would destroy the integrity of the story" - now it's "man, I just want everyone to be happy". Interesting how that happened.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
I couldn't care less what happens to Renegade decisions. What does bug me is you caring what happens to Paragon decisions when you don't take them.

You've confessed to wanting to play a space-jesus who has everything bend to her will so what you want doesn't count.

Now where's that Dave post that addresses this issue...
EDIT: Ahhh he did it.

Modifié par GodWood, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:21 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
It's not because it's just TIM, it's because it's done to an entire faction and morality. TIM just happens to be a convenient flag to rally behind.

If there was a Cerberus path of sorts, and then TIM (the person, not his organisation) turns on the player near the end, there would hardly be as much of a problem.

Well, when TIM is the organization (and the guy has Reaper tech in his face) I don't really see how it could've ended in a different manner.

Don't really care either, since his usefulness pretty much ended when the Reapers arrived, and I thought so way before the leak or the reveal of his private army too.

Hence why the betrayal/break-up shouldn't happen so early on: Give Shepard time to get to know the grunts and officers of the organisation (and vice-versa), get them to trust the Shepard, a symbol that should be as strong as their de jure and then no longer absolute leader.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:21 .

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...

I'm still not sure why people are against some renegade decisions turning out better and some paragon decisions backfiring (and vice versa).


People are just petty I guess.

I couldn't care less what happens to Renegade decisions. What does bug me is you caring what happens to Paragon decisions when you don't take them.

Just out of curiosity, why does this bug you?  It's not like it's really going to affect the writing in ME3.  I'd personally just like decisions to have more different and varying effects myself.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[AdmiralCheez]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I don't know about siding with Cerberus, but I expected them to be allies (of a varying degree of effectiveness, depending on your actions in ME 2 & the status of the CB).  And if they were going to turn against you, it'd be after the Reapers were dealt with.

But then, it'd be nice to have different factions to side with for power in the end, even in Bioware does choose a canon ending.

I expected them to be antagonists that you could side with at some point later in the game, going with the good old human dominance vs. galactic unity dynamic again.  I was kind of right.