631 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

TheOptimist wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

If it means that always picking the blue option without thinking at all will not lead to the best outcome for once, I'm all for it.

It means that decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful. 

It doesn't bother to point out what "feels right" means. It's a totally useless statement.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

I guess you're free to think that if you want, but that's not what the quote says.  'Feels right' is completely open to interpretation.

Actually, it's not. Of course I can't point to a study validating my point, but there is a very obvious pattern to the way Paragon decisions are set up:

In any particular situation, the Paragon decision is designed to be the one for the immediate, intuitive good as felt by a majority of players, regardless of long-term consequences. 

You can tell from certain situations where the Paragon option should be something else if this was wrong: the non-persuasion choices at Tali's trial for instance: you let your empathy for Tali override any other consideration and overlook that you've just lied to a legitimate government about experiments endangering the whole fleet. Or take the debate with TIM at the CB if you choose the Paragon option "This is an abomination". No talk about consequences - Shepard destroys the base because what was done there makes it feel wrong to keep it.

I know people have different reasons for their decisions. I don't question their validity here. But this is how the Paragon options are clearly designed. And that's why "what feels (immediately) right" is usually the Paragon choice.

Exceptions exist, of course. There are always those whose sense of "human patriotism" is so ingrained that those Renegade decisions that are designed to support human supremacism feel right for them. But as I said in another post, IMO they're a small minority. At least I haven't seen a lot of them here, even though those that do exist are uncommonly persistent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...

Abirn wrote...
Huge god like machines are coming to exterminate all organic life in the univierse.  And we have a piece of technology that can be studied to learn about them and help in our defense.  Cerberus's intentions be dammed, if you are fighting against extinction you pull out all the stops. 

Screw Cerberus' intentions, I'm talking about the potential consequences of letting them have yet more indoctrination bait.  After having narrowly stopped them from creating potentially galaxy threatening problems TWICE (Depot Sigma and Overlord), I have no intention of letting them have try #3.

I'd give the base to Hitler is that was an option.
NOTHING Cerberus could possibbly do can match the reapers. NOTHING.

Cerberus is nothing. A small-time player. Reapers are sentient super-starships. They have to be stopped at all cost.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold

[TheOptimist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Abirn wrote...
Huge god like machines are coming to exterminate all organic life in the univierse.  And we have a piece of technology that can be studied to learn about them and help in our defense.  Cerberus's intentions be dammed, if you are fighting against extinction you pull out all the stops. 

Screw Cerberus' intentions, I'm talking about the potential consequences of letting them have yet more indoctrination bait.  After having narrowly stopped them from creating potentially galaxy threatening problems TWICE (Depot Sigma and Overlord), I have no intention of letting them have try #3.

I'd give the base to Hitler is that was an option.
NOTHING Cerberus could possibbly do can match the reapers. NOTHING.

Cerberus is nothing. A small-time player. Reapers are sentient super-starships. They have to be stopped at all cost.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold

And by giving the base to Cerberus, you are likely handing the Reapers ready made indoctrinated goons who will not have had time to produce anything worthwhile. Congrats on making the super-starships that much stronger.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 08:03 .

[SandTrout]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'd give the base to Hitler is that was an option.
NOTHING Cerberus could possibbly do can match the reapers. NOTHING.

Cerberus is nothing. A small-time player. Reapers are sentient super-starships. They have to be stopped at all cost.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold

While you know that I agree with your general point, here, it is based off of the assumption that whatever bad they do/ screw up will not impede our actions against the Reapers, or at least the risk/reward calculations are favorable.

[Zarathiel]

TheOptimist wrote...

Zarathiel wrote...

If memory serves, Legion makes an observation that keeping the base might help in the future, but he doesn't say he thinks you should keep it, he's just trying to give you information.  He practically told you his opinion earlier when he said the Geth did not want Reaper tech, they'd make their own future.

Garrus says he hopes Cerberus knows what to do...and hopes they don't **** it up.

Grunt says when your enemy hands you a weapon, you use it.

I don't honestly remember what Mordin says, but of the first three, only Legion even halfway qualifies.

The important part is what Grunt says after the suicide mission. Whether you keep or blow it up, it's completely different from what he said inside the base. Handing the base over to Cereberus was weak, if you kept it. When you blow it up, he applauds your decision, after endorsing the option to keep it. He's the worst of the 4 imo.

Mordin argues for keeping the base when you're about to blow it up, saying information about Reapers would be useful.and then later says "Handing base over to Cerberus risky. More than risky, dangeious. Hope you know what you're doing."

Garrus doesn't say he hopes they don't f*** it up. He says he hopes they don't do something "worse than what the Collectors were planning. Watch yourself Shepard." I just went and talked to him for a game where I kept the base, this is the exact quote. That's a big difference.

As for Legion, he gave his opinion of using other technology to advance one's own culture. But he also boarded a derelict Reaper to get technology necessary to access the data core Sovereign gave the heretics in order to protect the geth. There's no option in game to ask him how that's different from using the Collector Base to potentially stop the Reapers.

Fine, Grunt I'll give you, that doesn't make any sense.  Again, given Cerberus' past history with dangerous research, (Akuze, Subject Zero, Chasca, Depot Sigma, Overlord, Derelict Reaper) Mordin and Garrus are perfectly justified in being worried about the risks in handing the thing over to Cerberus, that doesn't mean they're criticizing you or that they changed their thinking on it.

And incidentally, I don't see a big difference between 'hope they don't **** up', and 'hope they don't do something worse than the Collectors'. 

Hope they don't f*** it up is pretty vague and could mean a lot of things. Could mean doing something worse than Collectors, could mean typical Cerberus incompetence, could mean they paint it a gaudy orange color. Doing something worse than the Collectors isn't nearly as vague, since I can't think of a lot of things worse than making a reaper out of millions of innocent colonists.

Mordin and Garrus are the two weakest offenders on this in my book, but they didn't bring Cerberus up when we had the option to blow the base. Who do they think is going to get access to the base if it's kept? Even if the option existed to give it to a less ruthless party, Cerberus would get to it first anyway, since Shepard's group would have to leave the base and tell the Alliance/Council about it. Cerberus would be all over it in that time.

I just don't see the point of them focusing their dialogue on reservations about Cerberus when they are the only party who could possibly get control of the base.

IMO Mordin should have said something like "Risky to give Collector Base to Cerberus. Still only a pro-human group. Can be dealt with if necessary. *scoffs* Humans easier to kill than fleets of sentient dreadnoughts. *pause, looks up at Shepard* Uh. Most humans."

Garrus's dialogue could have stayed the same if they added an extra line like, "Still, if they try it, you and i could just go across the galaxy kicking their asses again."

Legion's last lines regarding the choice should have been: "We hope that you only use technology relevant to defeating the Old Machines. Your species has much potential. We would be interested to see what future you build."

An acknowledgement that you'd made the right decision from the appropiate squadmates to counter all the other squadmates saying you made the wrong one, would go a long way in making Renegade players feel like they aren't "getting shafted," choice-wise. A lot of this complaining going on now wouldn't exist if Bioware had gone this route.

I personally don't think any one decision should be "right." They should all have different benefits and drawbacks, so that each major choice feels unique.

[Ieldra]

TheOptimist wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

I get that part just fine.  But they're self inflicted wounds.  There are no gameplay consequences for renegade actions.  Any punishment you take is in your own head. Why you insist that Paragons take gameplay consequences when Renegades take none is beyond me.

I am saying that for instance, giving Cerberus the base feels just as bad to most Renegades as it feels to most Paragons, so saying "it's not a punishment if Cerberus starts do to horrible things with it, because you clearly don't care" is wrong. It *is* an undoubted negative consequence that Renegades have to live with, while Paragons have avoided it as best as they can.

And that, in turn, means, that if destroying the the base has only good consequences and no negative ones, then the Renegades are punished for their decision while the Paragons are not.

Which is OK for any single decision. No decision must be balanced. But the overall set of storyline-affecting decisions should be balanced, or the Renegade path will be invalidated.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2011 - 08:15 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I'm really looking forward to how the base decision plays out,maybe renegades will get a few extra missions so they can baby-sit,that would be good for them eh?

And paragons have to go deal with a couple Balak schemes or some sh*t...or maybe letting that eclipse girl go she starts her own band and you have to go stop some of her crap.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 08:21 .

[TheOptimist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I am saying that for instance, giving Cerberus the base feels just as bad to most Renegades as it feels to most Paragons, so saying "it's not a punishment if Cerberus starts do to horrible things with it, because you clearly don't care" is wrong. It *is* an undoubted negative consequence that Renegades have to live with, while Paragons have avoided it as best as they can.

And that, in turn, means, that if destroying the the base has only good consequences and no negative ones, then the Renegades are punished for their decision while the Paragons are not.

Which is OK for any single decision. No decision must be balanced. But the overall set of storyline-affecting decisions should be balanced, or the Renegade path will be invalidated.

That's just it, though.  People are complaining about the Renegade path being invalidated or shafted when none of those consequences have happened yet.  We do not know that handing the base to Cerberus is bad.  One can argue that it's very risky, but the truth is no one on this board knows the outcomes yet.  Point being, there may very well be a way to get a sunshine and lolipops ending having been a complete jerk to most of the galaxy.  Thus far, I have seen no evidence that will not be the case, as anything that can be accomplished with blue text can be accomplished in similar fashion with red.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 08:23 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I forget who it was ( I beleive it was SOS) who said the choice has to be more about Cerberus and less about the base itself,or you would have had more options.

I don't really remember who said it first (wasn't me), but I agree with whomever did say it that they whole choice was set up to be about Cerberus, not the base.  Otherwise, wouldn't there be a neutral option of allowing someone else to study it?  And (considering the Devs do things like this all the time), if the base was so important to the storyline, why give us the option to destroy it at all?  (Remember, they are not in the mindset to "punish players")

Meh. But that logic there should have been third and fourth and fifth options for almost everything.

Bio limits options avialalbe to players to better railroad them. Completely logical options are often not present. Don' t read too much into this.

For me the decision is about the base, because it as about about the base. I decide what happens to the base, no what happens to Cerberus..

and if Shep is so important to the storyline, why allow ships to die?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

and if Shep is so important to the storyline, why allow ships to die?

Coming from the guy who said himself death happens and blah....
It's getting kind of late and I don't feel like hunting down a quote,sorry.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 08:26 .

[habitat 67]

TheOptimist wrote...
That's just it, though.  People are complaining about the Renegade path being invalidated or shafted when none of those consequences have happened yet.

IMO, Renegade should be less about the end consequences and more about the entertainment value of playing as a brash jerk. Just another way of getting the job done.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

habitat 67 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
That's just it, though.  People are complaining about the Renegade path being invalidated or shafted when none of those consequences have happened yet.

IMO, Renegade should be less about the end consequences and more about the entertainment value of playing as a brash jerk. Just another way of getting the job done.

Then people wouldn't be able to throw their buzzwords at everything.

[Ieldra]

TheOptimist wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I am saying that for instance, giving Cerberus the base feels just as bad to most Renegades as it feels to most Paragons, so saying "it's not a punishment if Cerberus starts do to horrible things with it, because you clearly don't care" is wrong. It *is* an undoubted negative consequence that Renegades have to live with, while Paragons have avoided it as best as they can.

And that, in turn, means, that if destroying the the base has only good consequences and no negative ones, then the Renegades are punished for their decision while the Paragons are not.

Which is OK for any single decision. No decision must be balanced. But the overall set of storyline-affecting decisions should be balanced, or the Renegade path will be invalidated.

That's just it, though.  People are complaining about the Renegade path being invalidated or shafted when none of those consequences have happened yet.  We do not know that handing the base to Cerberus is bad.  One can argue that it's very risky, but the truth is no one on this board knows the outcomes yet.  Point being, there may very well be a way to get a sunshine and lolipops ending having been a complete jerk to most of the galaxy.  Thus far, I have seen no evidence that will not be the case, as anything that can be accomplished with blue text can be accomplished in similar fashion with red.

The genre-savvy player can see an emerging pattern. Or would you *really* believe that the Rachni queen will go back on her word? Or that saving the Council won't have mostly good consequences after the main risk - a game over screen in form of the opened Dark Space relay  - hasn't materialized? The problem is that if the writers don't deliberately set out to subvert the classic hero story - which is almost always also a morality tale - and turn it into something more realistic, we can expect things to go the way they usually go in such stories: the Paragon never has to compromise his morality and still gets the best outcome.

So no, we don't know all the outcomes yet. But better to complain now about an emerging pattern so that its full expression might be avoided.

@habitat67:
The difference is that I don't want to be a jerk. I don't know what's so entertaining about that. Neither do I want to be a goody-two-shoes who trusts that other people are as nice as he is. I do want to be competent strategist whose stratagems sometimes work. To that end, I want consequentialist decisions that sometimes work. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2011 - 08:48 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

and if Shep is so important to the storyline, why allow ships to die?

Coming from the guy who said himself death happens and blah....
It's getting kind of late and I don't feel like hunting down a quote,sorry.

I'm saying - if Shep dies on the SM, you can't import in ME3. It's effectively a game over. Thats' a rather big consequence for ME3, wouldn't you say?

[Aggie Punbot]

I really have to wonder why people care so much about what other people do in their games; this whole paragon vs. renegade argument is really, really stupid.

That being said, one of the decisions that I think feels right is saving the hostages in BDtS. I mean, sure, Shepard feels better about saving 4 people but in the grand scheme of things there is now one perpetually ticked off batarian terrorist with a grudge out there who has already proven that he's willing to kill millions of people. Who's to say Balak won't show up again at the worst possible time to wreck havoc on the human race just as they're mounting a defense against the reapers?

As for a renegade example: punching out the reporter. Sure it feels good but people may start thinking that you're merely a violent thug that needs to be put in their place and will refuse to heed your warnings about the reapers simply because they dislike you.

[Someone With Mass]

If dying is such a natural part of life, then I've got nothing to lose with destroying the Collector base.

[Someone With Mass]

TS2Aggie wrote...

I really have to wonder why people care so much about what other people do in their games; this whole paragon vs. renegade argument is really, really stupid.

That being said, one of the decisions that I think feels right is saving the hostages in BDtS. I mean, sure, Shepard feels better about saving 4 people but in the grand scheme of things there is now one perpetually ticked off batarian terrorist with a grudge out there who has already proven that he's willing to kill millions of people. Who's to say Balak won't show up again at the worst possible time to wreck havoc on the human race just as they're mounting a defense against the reapers?

As for a renegade example: punching out the reporter. Sure it feels good but people may start thinking that you're merely a violent thug that needs to be put in their place and will refuse to heed your warnings about the reapers simply because they dislike you.

Then again, that reporter is rather disrespectful.

Shepard is not the first/last one to physically abuse her either.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 août 2011 - 11:18 .

[Ieldra]

TS2Aggie wrote...
I really have to wonder why people care so much about what other people do in their games; this whole paragon vs. renegade argument is really, really stupid.

When it comes to morality, it is normal for people to care about what others do, because it is, among other things, a mechanism for community cohesion. 

That being said, one of the decisions that I think feels right is saving the hostages in BDtS. I mean, sure, Shepard feels better about saving 4 people but in the grand scheme of things there is now one perpetually ticked off batarian terrorist with a grudge out there who has already proven that he's willing to kill millions of people. Who's to say Balak won't show up again at the worst possible time to wreck havoc on the human race just as they're mounting a defense against the reapers?

Agreed.

As for a renegade example: punching out the reporter. Sure it feels good but people may start thinking that you're merely a violent thug that needs to be put in their place and will refuse to heed your warnings about the reapers simply because they dislike you.

Apparently it does feel good for many people. Not for me. I'd rather have a Renegade interrupt to punch Delan (that guy on Horizon). That would feel *so* good. 

Having said that, for those who feel good punching Al-Jilani, the situation qualifies: it feels good but it's incredibly stupid. I wonder what kind of press they will get in the running-up to the trial.

[CroGamer002]

"Decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful"


For those who never played Overlord, read LotSB Cerberus dossier and read books or Wiki about Cerberus thinks that keeping Collector Base feels right decision.

Modifié par Mesina2, 24 août 2011 - 11:24 .

[marshalleck]

Mesina2 wrote...

"Decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful"


For those who never played Overlord, read LotSB Cerberus dossier and read books or Wiki about Cerberus thinks that keeping Collector Base feels right decision.

what?

[CroGamer002]

^Just pointing the obvious.

[marshalleck]

I don't understand what you said. Something about Overlord and the Collector base? How are they related?

[Boiny Bunny]

Since some posts are moving slightly off topic, 2 quick reminders:

1) This thread is not about Paragon bashing, or Paragon vs Renegade.  It is about paragon and/or renegade decisions backfiring, or not working out the way that the player might have thought that they would.

Paragon example: Balak comes back in ME3 with no possible way to stop him, and destroys a vital Alliance military installation, resulting in a somewhat weaker Alliance fleet in the final battle against the Reapers.

Renegade example: Killing the council and creating a human only one in ME1, results in all the species being much more reluctant to help retake Earth in ME3.  The end result is that most of the human population is wiped out, and humans wind up with a much weaker position in the galaxy than they ever had at the start of ME1.

2) Hopefully for the last time, punching the reporter is NOT a renegade option.  It is neutral.

[CroGamer002]

^CerFailberus.

[Wulfram]

Done wrong, this could be pretty annoying. Arbitrarily having dire consequences appear without good reason to expect them is frustrating, and creates great annoyance on replays - do I metagame and go with what I know is the best choice, or make the decision my Shepard would make without foreknowledge.

I'd rather have a difficult moral choice with clear consequences for both sides than a "gotcha" moment later in the game.

Modifié par Wulfram, 24 août 2011 - 11:54 .