6970 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebby]

Armass81 wrote...

damn all this negative energy...

If you hate how the game turned up, why are you still here? Youre not going to buy it after all....are you?

I'll wait for spoilers of the final game with regards to TIM and Cerberus before I ultimately decide to "retire" from the franchise like I did with DA.

[Sebby]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Bioware just sucks hard at creating character relationships of any kind.

I have to disagree; they do a good job at character relationships, it's just in ME 2 they didn't really follow through with them.  You didn't need to take Garrus with you, why is he so familiar with you?  Wrex is at least explainable; if he showed up, you either decided not to kill him, or you did his sidequest.  

Also, Kang the Mad and Mordin are totally bros.

It's a shame BW completely ignored the Paragon/Renegade mentorship with Garrus and the choice to not recruit him in order to shoehorn him as Shep's eternal sidekick in ME2 and 3 to appease the fanboys.

[BlueMagitek]

Seboist wrote...

It's a shame BW completely ignored the Paragon/Renegade mentorship with Garrus and the choice to not recruit him in order to shoehorn him as Shep's eternal sidekick in ME2 and 3 to appease the fanboys.

I never really understood the Garrus love; in ME 1 his most memorable moment was his constant whining on Noveria; I almost missed him the first time I played through the game (why go after the Turian when the guy with the Shadow Broker almost certainly knows more?).

Then again, I did think that the Shadow Broker was an A.I., but whatever. ~_~

[Sebby]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It's a shame BW completely ignored the Paragon/Renegade mentorship with Garrus and the choice to not recruit him in order to shoehorn him as Shep's eternal sidekick in ME2 and 3 to appease the fanboys.

I never really understood the Garrus love; in ME 1 his most memorable moment was his constant whining on Noveria; I almost missed him the first time I played through the game (why go after the Turian when the guy with the Shadow Broker almost certainly knows more?).

Then again, I did think that the Shadow Broker was an A.I., but whatever. ~_~

It's his visual design and voice. If you take that out of the equation he's just a disgruntled cop.

I found Kaidan to be a better character personally.

Modifié par Seboist, 16 janvier 2012 - 07:38 .

[BlueMagitek]

Seboist wrote...
It's his visual design and voice. If you take that out of the equation he's just a disgruntled cop.

I found Kaidan to be a better character personally.

Eh, he's fine, but he's no Cam Clarke.

The humans are a lot better, character wise.  I thought Ashley was easily the "best" written (this is, of course, an opinion).  Not sure where everyone got the "space racist" exaggeration. ~_~

[HiroVoid]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seboist wrote...
It's his visual design and voice. If you take that out of the equation he's just a disgruntled cop.

I found Kaidan to be a better character personally.

Eh, he's fine, but he's no Cam Clarke.

The humans are a lot better, character wise.  I thought Ashley was easily the "best" written (this is, of course, an opinion).  Not sure where everyone got the "space racist" exaggeration. ~_~

Because anyone who doesn't fully embrace complete cooperation and sharing of technology and secrets is a space racist.

[naledgeborn]

LOL, facepalm @ "Ash is a Xenophobe!!!"

[BlueMagitek]

HiroVoid wrote...

Because anyone who doesn't fully embrace complete cooperation and sharing of technology and secrets is a space racist.

Well I'm glad to have seen the light.  Does that mean that Batarian Preacher on Omega is a space racist, or is he just misunderstood?

[John Renegade]

Xilizhra wrote...

In any case, I, as a Paragon, am the exact same way. I don't do what I do because of the intrinsic value of certain actions, but because I believe it's the best way to bring about the best possible outcome.

But Xil, I have never said that Paragon options should end up worse than the Renegade ones. I said that when you choose, you should decide which of the things that choice offers you really want. It may be, for example, a choice between getting a good feeling of fulfilling some moral rule versus being ruthless and saving more lives (you would be surprised as to how many people would choose the "moral" part instead of saving the lives). Or you may simply decide which of the two individuals present you are going to save, etc...

Simply said: You would (almost) always get what you've chosen, without any screw-ups, the difference would be in which way the story goes (the Witcher 2 is once again a good example). Neither Paragon nor Renegade would be worse off then the other one. Now, please contrast it with the situation Renegades face in-game - they are being screwed over and Paragons are not.

Also, in my ideal system, there would not be any arbitrary Paragon/Renegade division at all. Only choices with different consequences. I use the P/R naming system on these forums merely as points of reference. Besides, people (often Paragons) say, that they choose majority of the moral choices because of their personal moral compass and not because the game tells them which decision is Paragon and which is Renegade. I say: Let them prove it. I wonder, whether would they make the identical kind of decisions without any prescribed moral division.

[Sebby]

HiroVoid wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seboist wrote...
It's his visual design and voice. If you take that out of the equation he's just a disgruntled cop.

I found Kaidan to be a better character personally.

Eh, he's fine, but he's no Cam Clarke.

The humans are a lot better, character wise.  I thought Ashley was easily the "best" written (this is, of course, an opinion).  Not sure where everyone got the "space racist" exaggeration. ~_~

Because anyone who doesn't fully embrace complete cooperation and sharing of technology and secrets is a space racist.

She mentions spritituality/religion so she's a religious nut too.

[HiroVoid]

BlueMagitek wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Because anyone who doesn't fully embrace complete cooperation and sharing of technology and secrets is a space racist.

Well I'm glad to have seen the light.  Does that mean that Batarian Preacher on Omega is a space racist, or is he just misunderstood?

He's an alien, so he's excused.

She mentions spritituality/religion so she's a religious nut too.

That ticks me off too.  I'm fine with a person saying it makes them uncomfortable, or they don't like it, but yeah....people like to exaggerate Ashley's character traits.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 16 janvier 2012 - 09:30 .

[Sebby]

Ash wins points with me for providing the dialogue option for my Shep to say she believes in her lord and savior Jesus Christ.

[nevar00]

One thing I think Bioware really dropped the ball on was not being able to confront TIM about your past in ME1. If you had the 'sole survivor' background you can do a side quest to find out that Cerberus was the reason your entire team was killed. ...and that's it. You're never allowed to bring it up or mention it to TIM again.

[Sebby]

nevar00 wrote...

One thing I think Bioware really dropped the ball on was not being able to confront TIM about your past in ME1. If you had the 'sole survivor' background you can do a side quest to find out that Cerberus was the reason your entire team was killed. ...and that's it. You're never allowed to bring it up or mention it to TIM again.

You'd think the SS background would get a mention with Grunt's LM as well. They really made that background the biggest weaksauce of them all.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seboist wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

One thing I think Bioware really dropped the ball on was not being able to confront TIM about your past in ME1. If you had the 'sole survivor' background you can do a side quest to find out that Cerberus was the reason your entire team was killed. ...and that's it. You're never allowed to bring it up or mention it to TIM again.

You'd think the SS background would get a mention with Grunt's LM as well. They really made that background the biggest weaksauce of them all.

Yeah. I think Shepard's ability to criticise (regardless of background) Cerberus was generally weak. The problem seems to persist in ME3 with Shepard not being point out that his faith in the Alliance is shaky given how they generally did nothing at all for two years and abused his name.

[Sebby]

The backgrounds in general were very underused. There's no unique dialogue with colonist/ruthless in Arrival or Spacer with Tali's LM either.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seboist wrote...

The backgrounds in general were very underused. There's no unique dialogue with colonist/ruthless in Arrival or Spacer with Tali's LM either.

There have been a few missed opportunities to provide some additional dialog to spice the conversation up. It did not even need to be major changes, just a subtle nod to your background.

[Blacklash93]

Seboist wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

damn all this negative energy...

If you hate how the game turned up, why are you still here? Youre not going to buy it after all....are you?

I'll wait for spoilers of the final game with regards to TIM and Cerberus before I ultimately decide to "retire" from the franchise like I did with DA.

The maturity of this brings a tear to my eye.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 janvier 2012 - 10:42 .

[Sebby]

It's a modern art masterpiece.

[Xilizhra]

But Xil, I have never said that Paragon options should end up worse than the Renegade ones. I said that when you choose, you should decide which of the things that choice offers you really want. It may be, for example, a choice between getting a good feeling of fulfilling some moral rule versus being ruthless and saving more lives (you would be surprised as to how many people would choose the "moral" part instead of saving the lives). Or you may simply decide which of the two individuals present you are going to save, etc...

Quite frankly, it seems that much more often, Renegades kill people to prove some philosophical point or other, while Paragons are the ones who focus on saving as many lives as possible.

[HiroVoid]

Xilizhra wrote...

But Xil, I have never said that Paragon options should end up worse than the Renegade ones. I said that when you choose, you should decide which of the things that choice offers you really want. It may be, for example, a choice between getting a good feeling of fulfilling some moral rule versus being ruthless and saving more lives (you would be surprised as to how many people would choose the "moral" part instead of saving the lives). Or you may simply decide which of the two individuals present you are going to save, etc...

Quite frankly, it seems that much more often, Renegades kill people to prove some philosophical point or other, while Paragons are the ones who focus on saving as many lives as possible.

Well, the renegade way is supposed to be about eliminating threats so they don't reappear in the future.....the problem with this approach is that since the import feature is there, Bioware doesn't want to make players feel like their being punished for importing vs starting with a default playthrough, so any threat the renegade could have eliminated either reforms or is made meaningless.  I can see why they went that way since these boards would be filled with 'Why do I get punished for playing the previous games' topics for doing so, but it's part of the reason I'm not a fan of the import feature in general.  I'll personally be glad once they get done with Mass Effect so that'll probably be the end of the morality systems for future Bioware games(putting SWTOR aside).

[Sebby]

ME would have ended up better as a game if they got rid of the pretense of choice and stuck with doing a linear popamole sci-fi shooter with the typical liberal hollywood slant. It's clear by now that's what they've always intended.

[wannabuyanun]

I do love the illusive man.

But I love his eyes more.
I want those eyes >

[Sebby]

wannabuyanun wrote...

I do love the illusive man.

But I love his eyes more.
I want those eyes >

My femshep loves his eyes too.