708 réponses à ce sujet

[marshalleck]

Phaedon wrote...

Can't prove an argument? Start flaming.

Even if you hadn't failed to prove your speculation, this is my original post:

Phaedon wrote...

Because some shades of renegade are machiavellian.

Do anything for personal profit. I can't think of a single real pro-human decision that doesn't screw up other races.

EDIT: Focusing on Sovereign is not renegade, btw.

Pro-human=/=Renegade. End of story.

REAL (real pro-human decision, real) pro-human decisions so far had to do with screwing with other groups for personal profit.

That's why you get red points. Not because pro-human is renegade. That's retarded.

Who's flaming? I'm observing that you ask for an example of certain conditions and requirements, I provide a suitable example, and you start doing backflips to say how no that example doesn't count, blah blah blah. You've done this before. Remember the conversation we had the other day about anti-human Earth haters who want to destroy Earth in ME3? Remember how I predicted one would show up, and then they did? And you started playing the denial game? 

You do this to people all the time whenever you're challenged on a point you can't argue with. You start shifting goal posts. I'm hardly the first person to notice this behavior and making observations to the fact is not flaming. 

And now you're playing this "no true Scotsman" card. But replace "Scotsman" with "pro-human." Any example I provide you'll simply say it doesn't count for whatever contrived reason, and that it's not a 'real' example.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

marshalleck wrote...

You do this to people all the time whenever you're challenged on a point you can't argue with. You start shifting goal posts.

Why does that sound so familiar?
(not at all implying you marsh)

[Phaedon]

marshalleck wrote...
Who's flaming? I'm observing that you ask for an example of certain conditions and requirements, I provide a suitable example, and you start doing backflips to say how no that example doesn't count, blah blah blah. You've done this before. Remember the conversation we had the other day about anti-human Earth haters who want to destroy Earth in ME3? Remember how I predicted one would show up, and then they did? And you started playing the denial game? 

You do this to people all the time whenever you're challenged on a point you can't argue with. You start shifting goal posts. I'm hardly the first person to notice this behavior and making observations to the fact is not flaming. 

And now you're playing this "no true Scotsman" card. But replace "Scotsman" with "pro-human." Any example I provide you'll simply say it doesn't count for whatever contrived reason, and that it's not a 'real' example.

Hint, you are doing it right now. Again.

I have made no backflips. Saving the colonists is not a real -at least not pre-dominantly, according to the game and the majority of people- pro-human decision, even if you somehow proved it to be pro-human. It revolves around saving or killing lives. Race does not seem to be a major factor, because it is not even mentioned by any NPCs. The NPCs mention saving lives.

Further evidence that your post is inflammatory is easily noticable. For starters, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic and is very simply a personal attack. Well, I won't play your game and comment on your delusions of people wanting to destroy their homeworld or racism being a-okay.

As I said, I fully maintain my original position.
Pro-human=/=Renegade.
The actions that the OP is referring to are not just pro-human, they are also anti-alien.

And that's a fact. The OP complains about the game giving him renegade points for major pro-human decisions.
So, it obviously doesn't have to do with saving lives, something that awards you paragon pojnts. It's you who is trying to go off-topic and twist my words to make a personal attack.

[marshalleck]

How is going out of your way to save a human colony when you could easily just mow everyone down not a pro-human action?

"pro-human" can be defined as having a favorable opinion or acting in the interests of humans. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing inherently "anti-alien" about it. A person could be pro-human, and also pro-alien. (Kelly, she's full of love). A person could be simply pro-human, with a neutral stance toward others (Ashley--no, she's not a racist). A person could be pro-human and anti-alien (Kai Leng seems to fit this)

That a decision is rewarded with blue or red points does not make it inherently pro-human, anti-alien, etc. I seem to recall you get red points for killing Fist. Is that pro-human?

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 août 2011 - 09:06 .

[Arppis]

You guys are still going at it strong, eh?

[Phaedon]

marshalleck wrote...

How is going out of your way to save a human colony when you could easily just mow everyone down not a pro-human action?

"pro-human" can be defined as having a favorable opinion or acting in the interests of humans. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing inherently "anti-alien" about it. A person could be pro-human, and also pro-alien. (Kelly, she's full of love). A person could be simply pro-human, with a neutral stance toward others (Ashley--no, she's not a racist). A person could be pro-human and anti-alien (Kai Leng seems to fit this)

That a decision is rewarded with blue or red points does not make it inherently pro-human, anti-alien, etc. I seem to recall you get red points for killing Fist. Is that pro-human?

At which point of your post do you express a disagreement with me? In which part of it don't you further reaffirm my point?

Pro-human can be paragon or renegade.

Renegade can be pro-human, neutral or anti-human.

And of course, Pro-human=/=Racist. Not necessarily anyway.

The OP considers that BioWare is saying that pro-human=renegade which isn't true. He bases that on the real pro-human decisions on the game, the ones that are openly portrayed as pro-human.

There are a dozen of things that you can consider as pro-human. Like supporting the Alliance and condemning Cerberus. It's a matter of perspective.

The OP clearly complains about some very specific decisions in-game that are rewarded with renegade points. And as I have explained, these may be pro-human, but they are also machiavellian. Hence, the red points.

[Zu Long]

Do you two realize you're on the same side of this argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

marshalleck is arguing that Paragons can take pro-human actions as much as renegades can, using the example of Feros as an example of said pro-human action.

Phaedon is arguing that Pro-human and Renegade are NOT the same thing.

You appear to be agreeing with each other on the salient topic.

[marshalleck]

I don't know where I disagree with you. I'm not sure if I do, and that terrifies me. It's dark in here, and I may die.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I am not invalidating the reasoning for those that let the council die (I have done playthroughs where I let them die for variety's sake) but I don't like seeing my decision to save them being invalidated.  Why do you assume I am saving out of a sense of morality?  I am saving them for the sake of galactic stability what I think of those three individuals themselves is irrelevant,  I am thinking of the galaxy as a whole as well as preserving the most powerful dreadnaught in Citadel space.

That "most powerfull dreadnought" wil be useless if the reapers come.

Saving the galaxy at any cost is mroe important than holding hands with.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LGTX wrote...

Ultai wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Vigil's virus was in, the Reapers were cut off. Sovy was in the minority and his minutes were numbered anyway, at least that's the gist I had when first finishing the game. Taking him out with a live Council was the more productive choice.

I'm sure an ancient sentient machine isn't capable of just hacking through an organic race's little file in a short period of time in a network the Reapers constructed.  I mean, compared to the Reapers, the protheans are just a blip when talking about lifespan and acquired knowledge.  

Which is why I think if the Reapers really wanted to win, they would just bum rush the Citadel again with their entire fleet, easily occupy the station, hack through Vigil's file, then selectively shut off relays.  But this is a game and the player has to win, and most of the time the hero wins by forced villain stupidity (let's spread ourselves all over the galaxy!), or in this case, most likely a deus ex machina.  Focus on Sovereign always made the most tactical sense to me, that and I don't give a damn if random aliens like me or not.

I didn't think that much during a simple decision, sorry. And i don't metagame that much either. My logics told me that having an intergalactic leadership which trusted you would be better off in the coming war than thousands of human lives, or whatever, lost. I really had a sense that if the council would die, I'd either have to work real hard on gaining the trust of the new one, or not have the support at all.

And Vigil's virus WAS IN. I never assumed the opposite since it happened. Sovereign wouldn't need to zombie Saren all the way into the Tower if he could just hack the goddamn thing himself.

Vigial said the virus will BUY YOU SOME TIME. That is IT.

If you didn' destroy Sovereign it would have been game over. Hence, destruction of Sovereign = priority number 1

[LGTX]

My argument still stands. If Sovy could hack the Citadel himself, he wouldn't send Saren. Saren was dead. Sovy took control of Saren, so killing the latter became priority #1. Saving or not saving the Council had little to do with the odds against the final boss.

Sovy was doomed. He was locked up in his own creative rat trap but his parents weren't coming home anymore.

[ddv.rsa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

I am not invalidating the reasoning for those that let the council die (I have done playthroughs where I let them die for variety's sake) but I don't like seeing my decision to save them being invalidated.  Why do you assume I am saving out of a sense of morality?  I am saving them for the sake of galactic stability what I think of those three individuals themselves is irrelevant,  I am thinking of the galaxy as a whole as well as preserving the most powerful dreadnaught in Citadel space.

That "most powerfull dreadnought" wil be useless if the reapers come.

Saving the galaxy at any cost is mroe important than holding hands with.

True. Just look how effective it was against one Reaper. I'd rather have the six Alliance cruisers it takes to save the Ascension. Besides, by that point I was so sick of the Council I was looking for a chance to get rid of them. Bonus!

[TobyHasEyes]

Agamo45 wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Put your question in real life terms, for example, change pro-human to pro-white. Are you a paragon? No, you are a dick!

How about pro-American, or pro-Western in general? I think that's more accurate. Am I still a dick?

Yes

[Barquiel]

ddv.rsa wrote...

True. Just look how effective it was against one Reaper.

We don't know how effective the Destiny Ascension would be against a reaper. They had a geth problem.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fun fact: absolutely nothing that gives Renegade points is necessary. So, in a way, it's Paragons who care about the best results, while Renegades are enslaved by principle by claiming that "it SHOULDN'T be this way!"

I don't think I understand you. Care to explain this "fun fact"?

Certainly. You never have to undertake a Renegade action to save the galaxy or any variant thereof. You can save the Destiny Ascension, bomb the Collector base, save the rachni queen, etc. Undertaking the Renegade choice is never a necessity, regardless of what Renegade players may wish.

The problem with this is that it's a meta-gaming argument. You KNOW this is a game and as a player you'll win regardless of what.
Sheppard doesn't.

[ddv.rsa]

Barquiel wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

True. Just look how effective it was against one Reaper.

We don't know how effective the Destiny Ascension would be against a reaper. They had a geth problem.

If it can't handle a few Geth cruisers, why should it be able to handle multiple Reaper dreadnoughts?

The much less prestigious Alliance fleet was able to defeat those same Geth. My theory: the Ascension is horribly overated. Just like the Bismarck, Hood or even the Titanic. Like those, it makes a very impressive propaganda vessel but that's where its utility ends.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 17 août 2011 - 09:39 .

[Zu Long]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fun fact: absolutely nothing that gives Renegade points is necessary. So, in a way, it's Paragons who care about the best results, while Renegades are enslaved by principle by claiming that "it SHOULDN'T be this way!"

I don't think I understand you. Care to explain this "fun fact"?

Certainly. You never have to undertake a Renegade action to save the galaxy or any variant thereof. You can save the Destiny Ascension, bomb the Collector base, save the rachni queen, etc. Undertaking the Renegade choice is never a necessity, regardless of what Renegade players may wish.

The problem with this is that it's a meta-gaming argument. You KNOW this is a game and as a player you'll win regardless of what.
Sheppard doesn't.

As I pointed out about a page ago, if you are talking real world tactics, the Paragon option is the only one that makes sense. Not destroying the geth fleet on your flank invites defeat in detail when they attack your rear.

[KotorEffect3]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Put your question in real life terms, for example, change pro-human to pro-white. Are you a paragon? No, you are a dick!

How about pro-American, or pro-Western in general? I think that's more accurate. Am I still a dick?

Yes

Not to get political but anti-americanism pisses me off.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LGTX wrote...

My argument still stands. If Sovy could hack the Citadel himself, he wouldn't send Saren. Saren was dead. Sovy took control of Saren, so killing the latter became priority #1. Saving or not saving the Council had little to do with the odds against the final boss.

Sovy was doomed. He was locked up in his own creative rat trap but his parents weren't coming home anymore.

No, it doesn't. He sent Saren because Saren is his pawn. Ensurance if you will. When if Sovereign didn't mnage to enter the citadel intime? He needed someone on the inside to open the citadel.

Saren, when youre talkign to him in the final battle, cealry sez "in a few moment, Sovereign will have compelte control"...After he's out of the picture Shep uploads the Prothean virus (which as Vigil said will corrupt Citadel security protocols, thus buying you TIME).

 That's all you bought with the prothean disk - TIME. Time to activeate the relay and open the Citadel, and take Sovereign out.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zu Long wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fun fact: absolutely nothing that gives Renegade points is necessary. So, in a way, it's Paragons who care about the best results, while Renegades are enslaved by principle by claiming that "it SHOULDN'T be this way!"

I don't think I understand you. Care to explain this "fun fact"?

Certainly. You never have to undertake a Renegade action to save the galaxy or any variant thereof. You can save the Destiny Ascension, bomb the Collector base, save the rachni queen, etc. Undertaking the Renegade choice is never a necessity, regardless of what Renegade players may wish.

The problem with this is that it's a meta-gaming argument. You KNOW this is a game and as a player you'll win regardless of what.
Sheppard doesn't.

As I pointed out about a page ago, if you are talking real world tactics, the Paragon option is the only one that makes sense. Not destroying the geth fleet on your flank invites defeat in detail when they attack your rear.

Assumptions.
The Geth were busy with the citadel fleet. If they were turn towards the Alliacne fleet, then they would be turning their vulnerable posteriors to what remained of the citadel fleet.

And the whole point was to bring as much firepower on the Sovereign as possible. Geth are irrelevant - even if they take out half of your entire fleet after that.

[Zu Long]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fun fact: absolutely nothing that gives Renegade points is necessary. So, in a way, it's Paragons who care about the best results, while Renegades are enslaved by principle by claiming that "it SHOULDN'T be this way!"

I don't think I understand you. Care to explain this "fun fact"?

Certainly. You never have to undertake a Renegade action to save the galaxy or any variant thereof. You can save the Destiny Ascension, bomb the Collector base, save the rachni queen, etc. Undertaking the Renegade choice is never a necessity, regardless of what Renegade players may wish.

The problem with this is that it's a meta-gaming argument. You KNOW this is a game and as a player you'll win regardless of what.
Sheppard doesn't.

As I pointed out about a page ago, if you are talking real world tactics, the Paragon option is the only one that makes sense. Not destroying the geth fleet on your flank invites defeat in detail when they attack your rear.

Assumptions.
The Geth were busy with the citadel fleet. If they were turn towards the Alliacne fleet, then they would be turning their vulnerable posteriors to what remained of the citadel fleet.

And the whole point was to bring as much firepower on the Sovereign as possible. Geth are irrelevant - even if they take out half of your entire fleet after that.

If the rest of the citadel fleet remains a viable threat, then it only makes sense to use your superior force to free them up from fighting the geth in order to maximize your available firepower against Sovereign. So that excuse doesn't hold water.

If on the hand the citadel fleet ISN'T still a viable force, which is suggested by the fact that they are unable to defend their flagship, then the geth must be dealt with as a flanking threat. Leaving them behind to concentrate on Sovereign doesn't make sense- you already know it blew through one fleet to get here, so at best it will take a lengthy engagement to defeat it with the human fleet. Said engagement will be FAR more difficult and less winnable with an unchecked hostile force behind you.

In either scenario the best tactical choice is clearly to annihilate the enemy piecemeal rather than try for an impractical killing stroke that leaves you wide-open for a counter-attack.

Modifié par Zu Long, 17 août 2011 - 10:54 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zu Long wrote...
If the rest of the citadel fleet remains a viable threat, then it only makes sense to use your superior force to free them up from fighting the geth in order to maximize your available firepower against Sovereign. So that excuse doesn't hold water.

If on the hand the citadel fleet ISN'T still a viable force, which is suggested by the fact that they are unable to defend their flagship, then the geth must be dealt with as a flanking threat. Leaving them behind to concentrate on Sovereign doesn't make sense- you already know it blew through one fleet to get here, so at best it will take a lengthy engagement to defeat it with the human fleet. Said engagement will be FAR more difficult and less winnable with an unchecked hostile force behind you.

You forget one other factor - time. You don't really have time to loose trying to save the DA. Remeber, the option presented is "save the DA"..not "save the Citadel Fleet".
Because it seems to me that the Citadel fleet still has plenty of ships left and is holding their ground agaisnt the Geth.

The thing is that Sovereign could open the cital relay any second. You keep fresh, healty ships ready to stike at once, not risk them on a gamble. Shep was suppposed to open the Citadel doors and the realy immediately

In either scenario the best tactical choice is clearly to annihilate the enemy piecemeal rather than try for an impractical killing stroke that leaves you wide-open for a counter-attack.

The counter-attack is irrelevant, as I said before.
And as I said before, the Geth can't simply turn and attack, as that will leave them flanked. At least accodring to the cutscene, Alliance ships come fron another side - if Geth want to turn to engage them, they have to turn their main guns away from the citadel fleet.

[LGTX]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LGTX wrote...

My argument still stands. If Sovy could hack the Citadel himself, he wouldn't send Saren. Saren was dead. Sovy took control of Saren, so killing the latter became priority #1. Saving or not saving the Council had little to do with the odds against the final boss.

Sovy was doomed. He was locked up in his own creative rat trap but his parents weren't coming home anymore.

No, it doesn't. He sent Saren because Saren is his pawn. Ensurance if you will.

Being a pawn is reason enough? How is sending a relatively average, and KILLABLE, organic an ensurance, as opposed to using that supposed hyper intelligent machine god haxor skills?

[LordNige]

 I've always seen Paragon vs Renegade to have an element of  Altruism vs Selfishness to it as well as trust vs mistrust. I mean do you save the council and risk losing some of your own or protect your people and let the council go down? Pro-Human outlooks tend to be a very selfish and untrusting. Paragons look to extend olive branches whilst the Renegades tend to break them.

[Zu Long]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
If the rest of the citadel fleet remains a viable threat, then it only makes sense to use your superior force to free them up from fighting the geth in order to maximize your available firepower against Sovereign. So that excuse doesn't hold water.

If on the hand the citadel fleet ISN'T still a viable force, which is suggested by the fact that they are unable to defend their flagship, then the geth must be dealt with as a flanking threat. Leaving them behind to concentrate on Sovereign doesn't make sense- you already know it blew through one fleet to get here, so at best it will take a lengthy engagement to defeat it with the human fleet. Said engagement will be FAR more difficult and less winnable with an unchecked hostile force behind you.

You forget one other factor - time. You don't really have time to loose trying to save the DA. Remeber, the option presented is "save the DA"..not "save the Citadel Fleet".
Because it seems to me that the Citadel fleet still has plenty of ships left and is holding their ground agaisnt the Geth.

The thing is that Sovereign could open the cital relay any second. You keep fresh, healty ships ready to stike at once, not risk them on a gamble. Shep was suppposed to open the Citadel doors and the realy immediately

In either scenario the best tactical choice is clearly to annihilate the enemy piecemeal rather than try for an impractical killing stroke that leaves you wide-open for a counter-attack.

The counter-attack is irrelevant, as I said before.
And as I said before, the Geth can't simply turn and attack, as that will leave them flanked. At least accodring to the cutscene, Alliance ships come fron another side - if Geth want to turn to engage them, they have to turn their main guns away from the citadel fleet.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, time isn't a factor. It's going to take time to open the Citadel doors anyway, by which point the engagement with the geth will be decided. The game makes it clear that it's not a matter of CAN the 5th fleet wipe out the geth, but WILL they choose to do so since it means accepting losses. Since those losses will happen either way- either you assault the geth head on, or you let them flank you to the rear, it only makes sense to annihilate them while you don't have another threat to face.

Your point about the geth being unable to turn away ignores the part of the post immediately preceding the quote. Whether the Citadel fleet is still an operational force or not, destroying the geth is the best tactical option for the reasons I outlined already. Either they can still fight, which means they could help fight sovereign if they weren't holding the geth, or they can't still fight, which means the geth are a threat which must be eliminated.