1768 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueMagitek]

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.

Nobody wants all the Paragon decisions to end poorly, we just don't want every single Paragon decision to get the optimal outcome, especially when it seems that the universe twists itself to make it the right option.

If the Rachni prove to be a boon, that's fine.  The DA being useful, that's fine.  But at the same time, some of the Renegade decisions should be optimal choices as well; keeping the CB should be useful, keeping David (as hard a decision to make that might be) should be useful.

[GodWood]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@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.

The renegade posters I agree with have had a consistent message of what they want for years now.

Not sure what you're talking about.

[Labrev]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

It shouldn't. That's textbook metagame logic. Only one thing happens in your universe.

Renegades should ideally get their own victories. If they get nothing, then find victory in no failure.

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
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.

Even when they're *spoiler*kept in check with Reaper technology so that they won't rebel or go rogue on TIM?*spoiler*

Seems like a waste of time to me.

[DifferentD17]

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.

I didn't know it was just a war story. I guess all the other stories that aren't about war and the stories you create in the game don't matter. You can have all your characters die, but some people want a happy ending after 3 long games, and the end of the Trilogy that has been more character driven games than "war story" driven. 3-4 war story missions in ME2 and about 22 character missions. Yeah it's all about war.

[GodWood]

FallTooDovahkiin wrote...
Well do Renegade if you dont want the best outcome
I swear some people should get arrow's to the knees.

Quiet milk-drinker.

[BlueMagitek]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Really?  Was this before or after you heard about Cerberus being a large portion of the enemy?  I mean, Shepard worked with Cerberus in the past; even after the CB they would exchange information and ally with each other for a common goal (such as Lair of the Shadow Broker; Cerberus starts the information, doesn't it?).  

[Kaiser Shepard]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

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.

Come ME3 they no longer are.

And they aren't the good kind of Sith either (like Kreia), but mostly just "stabbity stab, kill, kill!", as Alistair would put it. They're just doing it for being evil, and could just as easily be replaced with the Collectors or geth.

[HiroVoid]

FallTooDovahkiin wrote...

Well do Renegade if you dont want the best outcome
I swear some people should get arrow's to the knees.

I used to talk like you.  Then, I took an arrow to the knee.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
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.

Even when they're *spoiler**spoiler*

Seems like a waste of time to me.

That's just a convenient asspull to prevent there being a real organisation.

Mass Effect used to be about choice, then it took an arrow to the knee.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[FoxShadowblade]

I think it really boils down to your opinion of what "best outcome" really is. I think both paths should reach the "We win, Shepard saved the Galaxy, got the chick, such and such" ending, but in the way befitting their ideals: The Paragon reaches the end viewed as a hero, a man of ideals and one who led the galaxy as a united front. The Renegade reaches the end also viewed as a hero, the many that questioned his brutal tactics now see that the ends justify the means.

I don't think either side should lose anything, I also don't think that either side should be better than the others. They weren't in the first two games. Sure, the Renegade options left a rather gut twisted feeling in me, despite them being the smart choices, but that doesn't make the Paragon choices better in any way.

And as for the whole Cerberus is evil thing, it is, as Kaiser Shepard points out, a viewpoint. Morality is just how you look at things from where you are sitting.

[EDIT] As a poster above points out, you have to look at it as that each Shepard is a different universe, you don't gain or lose anything. And let's face it: BioWare doesn't want you to face dire consequences for certain actions. Personally I don't want to lose a chance at a "perfect" ending on any of my characters(which is about 5 renegade, 6 Paragon, if I remember correctly) because of a few choices I made to gain those Renegade/Paragon points.

Modifié par FoxShadowblade, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:31 .

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
That's just a convenient asspull to prevent there being a real organisation.

That's your answer for everything new.

Think about it. How often have his projects gone rogue or utterly failed because his people hesitated?

If I were him, I'd cut the cute "join us and fight for humanity" crap a long time ago too.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:34 .

[AdmiralCheez]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Nobody wants all the Paragon decisions to end poorly, we just don't want every single Paragon decision to get the optimal outcome, especially when it seems that the universe twists itself to make it the right option.

If the Rachni prove to be a boon, that's fine.  The DA being useful, that's fine.  But at the same time, some of the Renegade decisions should be optimal choices as well; keeping the CB should be useful, keeping David (as hard a decision to make that might be) should be useful.

I agree with this.  I just never really got my hopes up too much about it, since none of ME2's carryover stuff really changed the game much.  Well, except for Wrex, but there are people out there (inb4onelifecrisis) that will argue that the difference was largely cosmetic.

The leaked script actually exceeded my expectations.  I was surpised how much relevance a lot of stuff had, especially when it came to who lived and died.  It's just... frustrating how the stuff the previous games made a big damn deal out of isn't all that important.

Or did we make a big damn deal out of that stuff?  Gonna have to replay and pay close attention.

If it makes you feel better, it looks like some of the renegade decisions in ME3 itself will pay off better than the paragon ones.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:37 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

DifferentD17 wrote...

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.

I didn't know it was just a war story. I guess all the other stories that aren't about war and the stories you create in the game don't matter. You can have all your characters die, but some people want a happy ending after 3 long games, and the end of the Trilogy that has been more character driven games than "war story" driven. 3-4 war story missions in ME2 and about 22 character missions. Yeah it's all about war.

Assuming you live in the West, your life for the most part isn't about war either. Were a war to actually hit your country, however, you can't expect your entire family and all your friends to survive merely because you don't want to lose them.

And there is strength in tragedy as well.

[Medhia Nox]

"Or did we make a big damn deal out of that stuff?" - AdmiralCheez

Example - the battle for the Citadel.

One metallic cuttlefish sneak attacks the Citadel with a huge f'n army of Geth - and looses... with a sneak attack... and an army... a huge army.

And suddenly the Reapers are unstoppable... we couldn't possibly succeed.

[HiroVoid]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The leaked script actually exceeded my expectations.  I was surpised how much relevance a lot of stuff had, especially when it came to who lived and died.  It's just... frustrating how the stuff the previous games made a big damn deal out of isn't all that important.

Or did we make a big damn deal out of that stuff?  Gonna have to replay and pay close attention.

People complained about it.  It was just the hope was that the choices would come more into play in ME3 since they wouldn't have to worry about importing after ME3.  Also, the 'who dies' choices usually don't get counted too much simply because it's not really a choice as much as it is how efficiently you played the game.

Ah that is a shame.
I can escape them arrows cause I am a Khajiit.

Dang Khajit and you'lls 'glow in the dark' eyes.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:37 .

[DifferentD17]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

DifferentD17 wrote...

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.

I didn't know it was just a war story. I guess all the other stories that aren't about war and the stories you create in the game don't matter. You can have all your characters die, but some people want a happy ending after 3 long games, and the end of the Trilogy that has been more character driven games than "war story" driven. 3-4 war story missions in ME2 and about 22 character missions. Yeah it's all about war.

Assuming you live in the West, your life for the most part isn't about war either. Were a war to actually hit your country, however, you can't expect your entire family and all your friends to survive merely because you don't want to lose them.

And there is strength in tragedy as well.

Mass Effect isn't "your life" it isn't "my life" it's a space fantasy. I don't play it so it can be real. There are plenty of war story video games, and movies about real wars. There isn't however many games that let you choose how you play and effect the outcome of your game. What would be the point of loyalty missions in ME2 if they died during the Suicide mission anyway? Just because you don't find romance in video games important doesn't mean there souldn't be. How many games have romance in them? Not many. Why should all games be only about war?

And there is depression and opression in tragedy as well.

[PsychoWARD23]

oh dear, spoilers in this thread

[DiebytheSword]

Medhia Nox wrote...

"Or did we make a big damn deal out of that stuff?" - AdmiralCheez

Example - the battle for the Citadel.

One metallic cuttlefish sneak attacks the Citadel with a huge f'n army of Geth - and looses... with a sneak attack... and an army... a huge army.

And suddenly the Reapers are unstoppable... we couldn't possibly succeed.

I find the hyperbole of unstoppable hilarious.  The only people to have witnessed a Reaper extinction cycle, and record it, felt they could be beaten if the cycle was broken by letting succesive civilizations know what was coming.  If we don't include the Rachni, the Reapers are on plan D, and their element of surprise was squandered along with allowing us too much knowledge about their technological singularity. 

[Kaiser Shepard]

[quote]DifferentD17 wrote...

[quote]Kaiser Shepard wrote...

[quote]DifferentD17 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]

I didn't know it was just a war story. I guess all the other stories that aren't about war and the stories you create in the game don't matter. You can have all your characters die, but some people want a happy ending after 3 long games, and the end of the Trilogy that has been more character driven games than "war story" driven. 3-4 war story missions in ME2 and about 22 character missions. Yeah it's all about war.[/quote]
Assuming you live in the West, your life for the most part isn't about war either. Were a war to actually hit your country, however, you can't expect your entire family and all your friends to survive merely because you don't want to lose them.

And there is strength in tragedy as well.
[/quote]

Mass Effect isn't "your life" it isn't "my life" it's a space fantasy. I don't play it so it can be real.[/quote]It isn't real, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be realistic. Versimilitude and all that.


[quote]There are plenty of war story video games, and movies about real wars.[/quote]And?


[quote]There isn't however many games that let you choose how you play and effect the outcome of your game.[/quote]This won't be one of those.


[quote]What would be the point of loyalty missions in ME2 if they died during the Suicide mission anyway?[/quote]What's the point of life if you'll just die eventually?


[quote]Just because you don't find romance in video games important doesn't mean there souldn't be.[/quote]Never said there shouldn't be, but they shouldn't be included at the cost of the story or actual c/c.


[quote]How many games have romance in them? Not many.[/quote]Define "romance".


[quote]Why should all games be only about war?[/quote]Why shouldn't a galactic extinction event be about just that?


[quote]And there is depression and opression in tragedy as well.[/quote]That's what I said: strength.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[FoxShadowblade]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

"Or did we make a big damn deal out of that stuff?" - AdmiralCheez

Example - the battle for the Citadel.

One metallic cuttlefish sneak attacks the Citadel with a huge f'n army of Geth - and looses... with a sneak attack... and an army... a huge army.

And suddenly the Reapers are unstoppable... we couldn't possibly succeed.

I find the hyperbole of unstoppable hilarious.  The only people to have witnessed a Reaper extinction cycle, and record it, felt they could be beaten if the cycle was broken by letting succesive civilizations know what was coming.  If we don't include the Rachni, the Reapers are on plan D, and their element of surprise was squandered along with allowing us too much knowledge about their technological singularity. 

Oh my god, their unstoppable!

...How many times have we stopped them?

And not even Shepard, the Rachni were the first attempt, huh? It probably goes farther back than that too. Poor Sovereign, what did he do during that time, run Solitaire runtimes?

[DifferentD17]

@Kaiser Shepard

And?

And this isn't just a war story... like I said....

This won't be one of those.

Yeah, it will. Thanks for explaining why it won't be.

What's the point of life if you'll just die eventually?

Are we here to talk about video games or are we here to talk about your philosophies?

Never said there shouldn't be, but they shouldn't be included at the cost of the story or actual c/c.

It's part of the story... all three ME stories.... How could it be a cost to itself?

Define "romance".

If you don't know what romance is, you should learn quickly.

Why shouldn't a galactic extinction event be about just that?

Because the first two had other stories that have to end here too? That's like not continuing Pippin and Merry's story and going straight to Frodo throwing the ring in.

That's what I said: strength.

So depression is strength? For who?

Modifié par DifferentD17, 07 décembre 2011 - 04:17 .