708 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden 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!"

Renegades don't meta-game.


In any case I don't see why Paragon and Renegade need to be tied to politics. Why can't Shepard be onboard with the Council but utterly ruthless in completing missions?

Why can't a Paragon be suspicious of the Council, firmly a human independent, but also someone who refuses to let innocents be sacrificed for the sake of mission success?

Indeed, the current renegade and paragon system is too arbitary and one dimensional.

I don't see why we couldn't have the following examples,

Human Dominance Paragon: Basically one who wants humans on top in order to be a great inspiration for the other species to follow.

Pro-alien Renegade: One who wants humans to be part of a broader coalition/political bloc against the three council species.

The problem is that the choices exist in a complete vacuum from each other and are pigeonholed into being "paragon" and "renegade".

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

Vigil says something to the fact that part of the Reaper's plan include the destruction of centralized government; then divide and conquer.

Here are your choices: the centralized government takes a hit or the Reapers pour through the relay, capturing the Citadel and deactivating the mass relay network

Which do you want?

Saving the Council may indeed help in the long run (I stress, "may"), but my point is, and I was explicit and plain about this so I don't know how you could be confused, is that THERE WILL BE NO LONG RUN IF SOVEREIGN WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me repeat that again incase you STILL don't get it.


IF SOVEREIGN WINS THERE WILL NOT BE A LONG RUN! IT'S OVER! YOU LOSE! REAPERS WIN! NO ME2, NO ME3!!!!!!!

DO YOU GET IT NOW?????

Sovereign's paralyzed without Saren's override scheme, and with Shepard having reversed it and totally locked Sovereign out from control of the Citadel. We can tell this because Sovereign tries to reverse it by attacking Shepard personally, and because Sovereign does not, in fact, open the relay.

[Golden Owl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...


Not about that Seboist....saving them was a political move, in my eyes anyway.

Uh huh. And if Sovereign opens the relay and the Reapers pour through this "political move" will benefit you how exactly?

You're planning for an endgame but if you don't stop Sovereign THERE WILL NOT BE AN END GAME!

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

Cutting and pasting an earlier comment I made:



"....I saved the council...why?: Galactic stability, with the
Reapers coming Galactic stability is needed more than ever....no matter
how d*ckish polititions are, the fact of the matter is in times of
strife/trauma people turn to their pollies for guidance....By allowing
the pollies to die, Shep is fracturing Galactic unity, which he is going
to need in spades when the Reaper force arrives.....Mine was purely a
political decision."


Shep knows at this point that Sovereign is only the vanguard to an army or Reapers.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Xilizhra wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Renegades don't meta-game.

Neither do Paragons. Glory for everyone!

Yes they do. You just used a Paragon argument to justify your choices.

Actually, that was me mocking the excessively obnoxious Renegade partisans. I can give you in-game decisions for every Paragon thing I've done if you prefer.

Xil it is best not to argue with Saphra,soon she will just respond to all of your post with "You are stupid." or "kiss my ass"

[Logical Escape]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Uh huh. And if Sovereign opens the relay and the Reapers pour through this "political move" will benefit you how exactly?

You're planning for an endgame but if you don't stop Sovereign THERE WILL NOT BE AN END GAME!

{smilie}

In which case, you select "focus on sovereign" for no paragon OR renegade. Hooray!

[marshalleck]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sovereign's paralyzed without Saren's override scheme, and with Shepard having reversed it and totally locked Sovereign out from control of the Citadel. We can tell this because Sovereign tries to reverse it by attacking Shepard personally, and because Sovereign does not, in fact, open the relay.

You'd be willing to wager all of galactic civilization on a member of the race that built the Citadel being unable to override a temporary lockout?

That's stunningly poor decision-making.

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 août 2011 - 02:33 .

[Golden Owl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

Vigil says something to the fact that part of the Reaper's plan include the destruction of centralized government; then divide and conquer.

Here are your choices: the centralized government takes a hit or the Reapers pour through the relay, capturing the Citadel and deactivating the mass relay network

Which do you want?

Saving the Council may indeed help in the long run (I stress, "may"), but my point is, and I was explicit and plain about this so I don't know how you could be confused, is that THERE WILL BE NO LONG RUN IF SOVEREIGN WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me repeat that again incase you STILL don't get it.


IF SOVEREIGN WINS THERE WILL NOT BE A LONG RUN! IT'S OVER! YOU LOSE! REAPERS WIN! NO ME2, NO ME3!!!!!!!

DO YOU GET IT NOW?????

Balanced with, if Sovereign can be destroyed, but you loose all Galatic Stabilty in the process, the coming Reapers will have a walk in the park in taking everyone down.

[Seboist]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Renegades don't meta-game.

Neither do Paragons. Glory for everyone!

Yes they do. You just used a Paragon argument to justify your choices.

Actually, that was me mocking the excessively obnoxious Renegade partisans. I can give you in-game decisions for every Paragon thing I've done if you prefer.

Xil it is best not to argue with Saphra,soon she will just respond to all of your post with "You are stupid." or "kiss my ass"

Well, there might be some on here that want to do it. You never know...

[marshalleck]

Golden Owl wrote...

Balanced with, if Sovereign can be destroyed, but you loose all Galatic Stabilty in the process, the coming Reapers will have a walk in the park in taking everyone down.

Not necessarily. Living to fight another day is still a chance. There's no chance at all if the entire Reaper armada comes pouring through the Citadel relay during the first battle.

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden 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!"

Renegades don't meta-game.


In any case I don't see why Paragon and Renegade need to be tied to politics. Why can't Shepard be onboard with the Council but utterly ruthless in completing missions?

Why can't a Paragon be suspicious of the Council, firmly a human independent, but also someone who refuses to let innocents be sacrificed for the sake of mission success?

Indeed, the current renegade and paragon system is too arbitary and one dimensional.

I don't see why we couldn't have the following examples,

Human Dominance Paragon: Basically one who wants humans on top in order to be a great inspiration for the other species to follow.

Pro-alien Renegade: One who wants humans to be part of a broader coalition/political bloc against the three council species.

The problem is that the choices exist in a complete vacuum from each other and are pigeonholed into being "paragon" and "renegade".

I strongly disagree...there is nothing paragon about that.

[Xilizhra]

marshalleck wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Sovereign's paralyzed without Saren's override scheme, and with Shepard having reversed it and totally locked Sovereign out from control of the Citadel. We can tell this because Sovereign tries to reverse it by attacking Shepard personally, and because Sovereign does not, in fact, open the relay.

You'd be willing to wager all of galactic civilization on a member of the race that built the Citadel being unable to override a temporary lockout?

That's stunningly poor decision-making.

Yes. If Sovereign could do that by itself, Saren wouldn't have needed to fiddle with the controls at all. After opening the arms, he could have just left, and Sovereign's dedicated potential avatar/geth general would have been totally safe.

[Golden Owl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Balanced with, if Sovereign can be destroyed, but you loose all Galatic Stabilty in the process, the coming Reapers will have a walk in the park in taking everyone down.

That's not balance, that's a stupid risk to take.

You're are risking the survival of all sentient life in the galaxy in the hope that you'll preserve a little political stability in the future.

And I have posted twice now why I consider political stability is so important....please refer to that post and I will happily debate from that point.

[Omnicrat]

Agamo45 wrote...

 Renegade is about being ruthless right? Well I've never understood what is 'ruthless' about supporting and promoting your own race. To be a paragon you basically have to be a self-hating 'liberal'(for lack of a better word) and an apologist. You have to kiss every alien's ass and apologize for humanity's success. The attitude is borderline treasonous. I would not be surprised if the paragon ending to ME3 involves sacrificing Earth to save the rest of the galaxy.

And all of that is why you are a renegade.  That is how a renegade would see trying to work togeather, with the aliens instead of along side them.

The point is that paragons care about people, not humans.  To say humans are more important then people (or, for a more real-world example, to say americans are more important then people) is not paragon.

Also, renegade isn't ruthless inherantly.  It is "what is best for me and how can I achieve that in the most effective way?"  While paragon is "What is best* and how can that be achieved?"

Now do you see how that fits into renegade?

*either for everyone or ethically

[Seboist]

Golden Owl wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden 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!"

Renegades don't meta-game.


In any case I don't see why Paragon and Renegade need to be tied to politics. Why can't Shepard be onboard with the Council but utterly ruthless in completing missions?

Why can't a Paragon be suspicious of the Council, firmly a human independent, but also someone who refuses to let innocents be sacrificed for the sake of mission success?

Indeed, the current renegade and paragon system is too arbitary and one dimensional.

I don't see why we couldn't have the following examples,

Human Dominance Paragon: Basically one who wants humans on top in order to be a great inspiration for the other species to follow.

Pro-alien Renegade: One who wants humans to be part of a broader coalition/political bloc against the three council species.

The problem is that the choices exist in a complete vacuum from each other and are pigeonholed into being "paragon" and "renegade".

I strongly disagree...there is nothing paragon about that.

That's essentially what happens in the ME1 Paragon ending with the council sacrificed. Udina talks about the other species looking up to humanity.

[Logical Escape]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You get 8 Paragon and 9 Renegade.

So a net close to zero.  It's the neutral option.  It's not like there isn't one presented.

[marshalleck]

Xilizhra wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Sovereign's paralyzed without Saren's override scheme, and with Shepard having reversed it and totally locked Sovereign out from control of the Citadel. We can tell this because Sovereign tries to reverse it by attacking Shepard personally, and because Sovereign does not, in fact, open the relay.

You'd be willing to wager all of galactic civilization on a member of the race that built the Citadel being unable to override a temporary lockout?

That's stunningly poor decision-making.

Yes. If Sovereign could do that by itself, Saren wouldn't have needed to fiddle with the controls at all. After opening the arms, he could have just left, and Sovereign's dedicated potential avatar/geth general would have been totally safe.

Except this isn't the case at all, you're just making things up in your head. Even Vigil tells you the program it gives you will only allow temporary control.

 2:00 - 2:25

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 août 2011 - 02:42 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I'd like to thank everyone for giving something to fuel the saphrarage.

Bravo.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes. If Sovereign could do that by itself, Saren wouldn't have needed to fiddle with the controls at all. After opening the arms, he could have just left, and Sovereign's dedicated potential avatar/geth general would have been totally safe.

Saren was there to open the arms for Sovereign so that it could reach the tower. Else once the Citadel was closed at the start of the attack Sovereign would have no way to accomplish its mission.

Once Sovereign is docked to the station Saren is no longer absolutely necessary. He may still be useful as a way to keep Shepard from interfering, but he isn't needed.

The arm-opening took place at Citadel Control, before Shepard even arrived at the Citadel. Saren then had to go up to the Council Chamber to remove control of the Citadel from the Keepers, which Shepard undid. And if Saren wasn't necessary, how the hell could Shepard interfere anyway?