631 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

That "one alien" would have led to the rebirth of a race that had previously killed millions of Krogan. Shepard is essentially pissing on the graves of their ancestors if she decides to let her go.

Yes, and? Wouldn't the krogan just want to kill them again? They could easily enjoy the fight.

Which is what Wrex says if Shepard does that in his presence and vows that they'll put an end to them again......... before he conveniently forgets about it in the next game of course.

It's worth noting that Wrex is a much better person in the second game.

[Seboist]

Kind of hard to fight the Rachni when they have a far smaller near sterilized population without a fleet and under the threat of orbital bombardment from Council forces wouldn't you say?

[Xilizhra]

Seboist wrote...

Kind of hard to fight the Rachni when they have a far smaller near sterilized population without a fleet and under the threat of orbital bombardment from Council forces wouldn't you say?

True. Guess that's what you get for starting a galactic war.

[Red Son Rising]

"Decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful"

god i hope so. ME3 will be so boring if choosing paragon gets the optimal results every time. doin renegade things [ie being a d*ck] should pay off sometimes even if is something small. id love to punch udina for bein a douche if you nominate him for the council and he stabs you in the back 

[Chewin]

Red Son Rising wrote...

"Decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful"

god i hope so. ME3 will be so boring if choosing paragon gets the optimal results every time. doin renegade things [ie being a d*ck] should pay off sometimes even if is something small. id love to punch udina for bein a douche if you nominate him for the council and he stabs you in the back 

Don't worry, they've confirmed that the paragon options will not always be the "best" choice.

[Ryzaki]

I'm still amused that renegades think paragons deserve punishment.

Because any renegade choice has *totally* backfired so far eh?.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 03:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm still amused that renegades think paragons deserve punishment.

Because any renegade choice has *totally* backfired so far eh?.

If you count those mostly lame and pointless cameos of people many Renegades have killed and getting worked up over because they're missing out as a "backfire"...

[flemm]

No choices in the game really backfire. It's all about fantasy fulfillment, either way. And, generally speaking, that's fine and not going to change.

That said, I wouldn't mind the occasional dire result in both morality paths, or the occasional choice that is truly ambivalent from where you sit prior to making it. (The DA:O example given a few posts above is a pretty good example of this type of thing. You really don't have enough information at the time of making the choice to be able to tell which choice corresponds to which morality path.)

Modifié par flemm, 24 août 2011 - 03:32 .

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...
I'm still amused that renegades think paragons deserve punishment.

Because any renegade choice has *totally* backfired so far eh?.

Renegade decisions usually backfire by being proven unnecessary and by their immediate bad consequences being equal to or greater than the expected good ones. Which means, for Renegades the long-term consequences are the good ones which they hope will balance out the immediate bad ones, for Paragons the long-term consequences are the bad ones which they do not hope will balance out the immediate good ones. Having said that, here are a few examples:

(1) Leaving the Council to die has already backfired because it has proven unnecessary. Unless we see more consequences favoring the Renegade decision in ME3.
(2) If the Rachni queen proves friendly as it appears, then killing her you will have committed genocide for nothing and you will have removed a valuable ally.
(3) Killing Wrex has backfired because he wasn't a threat to the Virmire mission and his replacement is less friendly.
(4) I cannot imagine seeing anything good coming from killing he colonists on Feros.

[Ryzaki]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm still amused that renegades think paragons deserve punishment.

Because any renegade choice has *totally* backfired so far eh?.

If you count those mostly lame and pointless cameos of people many Renegades have killed and getting worked up over because they're missing out as a "backfire"...

I consider getting some of those cameos a backfire. Especially saving Fist's ******. 

MY CHOICES AREN'T BEING VALIDATED THE WAY I WANT BIOWARE!  

@Ieldra: 

Backfire usually means something NEGATIVE occurs because you did it. Not that because someone did smething else they got a better (or different) outcome. None of those things you listed actually backfired on renegades. Someone else just got a different (and more desirable to you apparently) outcome. The Rachni queen said she'd help. Big whoop. There's no proof yet that's completely positive. Saving the council? Yeah Shep got his/her spectre status back and had to deal with "Ah yes 'Reapers.'." all over again. Again you can still get Spectre reinstatement by electing Anderson (don't think there as a paragon/renegade for that decision. At least I hope not).  Saving the council? Yeah you should've seen them but that didn't negatively impact Shepard anyway whatsoever. If you want more content say so but don't pull some crap about renegades being punished. They're not. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 03:37 .

[flemm]

Renegade decisions usually backfire by being proven unnecessary and by their immediate bad consequences being equal to or greater than the expected good ones. Which means, for Renegades the long-term consequences are the good ones which they hope will balance out the immediate bad ones, for Paragons the long-term consequences are the bad ones which they do not hope will balance out the immediate good ones. Having said that, here are a few examples:

I think where your view of the issue may differ from that of the developers is that, for the developers, the main payoff for the Renegade path is the immediate visceral pleasure of stomping around like a badass, i.e. the choices themselves are the payoff for the most part.

The choices aren't going to screw you in the end, but I don't think they are interested in validating the Renegade choices on a pragmatic level in the long term.

Modifié par flemm, 24 août 2011 - 03:43 .

[Someone With Mass]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) Leaving the Council to die has already backfired because it has proven unnecessary. Unless we see more consequences favoring the Renegade decision in ME3.
(2) If the Rachni queen proves friendly as it appears, then killing her you will have committed genocide for nothing and you will have removed a valuable ally.
(3) Killing Wrex has backfired because he wasn't a threat to the Virmire mission and his replacement is less friendly.
(4) I cannot imagine seeing anything good coming from killing he colonists on Feros.

1. It has not been proven unnecessary until ME3. Because if we're judging by ME2's actions, then saving the Council is equally as pointless.
2. The Reapers indoctrinated the rachni. There's a chance that they'll do it again.
3. Killing Wrex is not a Renegade choice. Invalid.
4. I have yet to see anything good coming from them at all.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 août 2011 - 03:58 .

[Wulfram]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) Leaving the Council to die has already backfired because it has proven unnecessary. Unless we see more consequences favoring the Renegade decision in ME3.

The renegade choice isn't to leave the council to die because it's necessary.  It's to leave the council to die because they're jerks who aren't worth the sacrifice of human lives, and perhaps because you want human dominance.  Your pay off is a human dominated galaxy, dead council members and more living Alliance soldiers.

"Concentrate on Sovereign" because you don't want to risk the galaxy choice is a neutral option.

(2) If the Rachni queen proves friendly as it appears, then killing her you will have committed genocide for nothing and you will have removed a valuable ally.

Maybe, but you've still removed a threat to human dominance in the future.  Really, the Rachni shouldn't be all that important in the Reaper war either way, but in a few generations they'll be real threat.

(3) Killing Wrex has backfired because he wasn't a threat to the Virmire mission and his replacement is less friendly.

Killing Wrex isn't a renegade decision.  You can save him with Intimidate and Charm both.

(4) I cannot imagine seeing anything good coming from killing he colonists on Feros.

Why would it?  But the anti-thorian grenades you saved should have made killing those damn Thorian Creepers a bit easier.

[Seboist]

Wulfram wrote...

The renegade choice isn't to leave the council to die because it's necessary.  It's to leave the council to die because they're jerks who aren't worth the sacrifice of human lives, and perhaps because you want human dominance.  Your pay off is a human dominated galaxy, dead council members and more living Alliance soldiers.

Is it really a human dominated galaxy? I don't get to see the coucil and there's very little in the way of suggesting humans are stronger politically or militarily.

The three little pigs could be running the show for all my Shepard knows but I guess she'll have to take the game's word for it.

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Renegade decisions usually backfire by being proven unnecessary and by their immediate bad consequences being equal to or greater than the expected good ones. Which means, for Renegades the long-term consequences are the good ones which they hope will balance out the immediate bad ones, for Paragons the long-term consequences are the bad ones which they do not hope will balance out the immediate good ones. Having said that, here are a few examples:

I think where your view of the issue may differ from that of the developers is that, for the developers, the main payoff for the Renegade path is the immediate visceral pleasure of stomping around like a badass, i.e. the choices themselves are the payoff for the most part.

The choices aren't going to screw you in the end, but I don't think they are interested in validating the Renegade choices on a pragmatic level in the long term.

Yet that's why most people make them. If some Renegade decisions aren't validated on a pragmatic level, then they aren't validated at all. As I said, most Renegades don't make their decision because they like being jerks and killing for no reason at all.

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...
Backfire usually means something NEGATIVE occurs because you did it. Not that because someone did smething else they got a better (or different) outcome. None of those things you listed actually backfired on renegades.

I'm sorry but the lack of something positive the other side gets IS A NEGATIVE!

Besides, Renegade decisions of the kind "KIll X because it may become a threat" by their very nature cannot backfire the way you appear to restrict backfiring to. That's why Renegades make them - better safe than sorry.

[Wulfram]

Pragmatism isn't renegade, it's neutral.

Renegades belief in vigilante justice is distinctly unpragmatic in my eyes.  As is their tendency to be impolite to their superiors, which never backfires on them.

Modifié par Wulfram, 24 août 2011 - 04:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Or pragmatic in different areas. Paragons are pragmatic in civil relations, but tend to be more idealism-driven in decision making. Renegades are less pragmatic in most conversations, but have more effect-focused decisions.

[flemm]

Yet that's why most people make them.

On what are you basing that assertion?

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Yet that's why most people make them.

On what are you basing that assertion?

Look at the debates here. Sure they're not indicative of the majority, but it's evidence nonetheless. For those Renegade decisions that can be seen as pragmatic anyway. There are others, I don't know why people take those, but neither have I seen many people telling me they take those.

Here's one reason though: I take many Renegade options at inconsequential conversations because I need the Renegade points for more important conversations. About a third of those I would take for fun, but again, these are minor decisions. I never take imporant decisions for nothing more than badassery. Neither do most players from what I read in these forums.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2011 - 04:23 .

[Ieldra]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Renegade is sometimes pragmatic and sometimes it isn't.

Yes. Perhaps I should phrase it like this: pragmatic Renegade decisions should sometimes yield the pragmatic benefits (over the Paragon alternatives) they are made for.

[flemm]

Look at the debates here. Sure they're not indicative of the majority, but it's evidence nonetheless.

Well, it's indicative of something, but probably not that most Renegade players are motivated by a pragmatic analysis of each choice. Forums like these can present an extremely warped view of how the average player approaches the game because they skew so heavily toward that small minority of players who are sufficently invested in the game to post about it at length here.

[Dean_the_Young]

How many times do the majority of people make a decision against conventional morality for illogical or non-pragmatic reason?