631 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Seboist wrote...

That "Rachni ambassador" sounded like she was in some drug induced like state and not all there in the head.

Very unpleasant indeed.

She's just blissed out from lots of hot Rachni sex.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If you really don't trust Legion/the Geth, it would be pretty strange to enter an unknown space station and plant a big bomb.

Legion has proved that he is not an enemy and so the Heretics something we can both mutually benefit from. However if I rewrite them then the geth are geetting more out of this than I am. I'd rather keep it even.

If Legion proved he's not an enemy, then so did TIM. TIM did more than Legion ever did.

[Ieldra]

Alamar2078 wrote...
As for the "optimal" outcome I hope there isn't some sort of obvious best choice no matter what your Shep's personality.

I'm with you here. Unfortunately, that also applies to patterns. There should be no pattern of obvious best choices. I will take the negative side effects of any decision if I can also achieve its objective. For instance:

On the Renegade side: I will risk a human dominated galaxy even though I don't want it, if that means I can better turn the tables on the Reapers by keeping the Collector base.

On the Paragon side: I will risk a hostile Rachni species by saving the queen, thus avoiding genocide, and accept additional casualties in the war as long as I still get a reasonably good victory.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2011 - 06:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Don't you get it? The point is that the game acknowledges the paragon choice. The universe recognizes it happened. For renegade choices you get nothing. And no, an empty chair is not a recognition of it happening.

I'm afraid the empty chair does in fact qualify as recognition, because when you remove someone from the universe, THEY DON'T SHOW UP AND TALK TO YOU.  Bioware made Renegade the default choice, that's all.

No, it doens't. Especially if you don't even know that someone was supposed to be on that chair!

Meeting some paragon cameo on Illum is unexpected. Not meeting anyone isn't.
Again, that's not recognition.

Recognizion would be going past Fisks house and see it boarded down and condemend. SEEING that the game acknowledges what you did.

[outmane]

flemm wrote...

I want to be a character with believable strategic insight, spiced up with the occasional badassery or empathy.

Well, the game is not designed around believable strategic insight, and I don't expect ME3 to be any different. Realism is not the goal. An example is what you are discussing below...

BTW, what happened in Arrival was actually a Renegade decision, only we didn't get to make it. The Paragon decision would've been to try to wriggle out of having to kill all those batarians. Because it actually *was* necessary, Bioware didn't design it as a decision so that no Paragon would have to complain for getting his rightly deserved game over screen as a result. Even so, there were Paragons who complained about this setup....

The game is not going to give any player a "game over" screen for making either a Paragon or Renegade choice because it is not interested in demonstrating what you are arguing for, i.e. that sometimes certain types of choices will just blow up in your face.

Of course, many of the paragon/renegade choices could have catastrophic results either way, were similar choices played out in the real world, but the whole point is the escapist fantasy.

What you are asking for would be like asking for the game to react to a violent renegade choice by having the police show up and arrest Shepard, leading to the player character being thrown in jail for the rest of his/her life, game over.

Yeah, that could reasonably happen, but that would be lame.

Exactly that.

You dont get a game over screen from saving the council just like you dont get a game over screen from jack destroying your ship if youre pro-cerberus. Its a game made to let you write your own story. Not an im-gonna-teach-you-how-the-real-world-works tool.

Renegade having less content is the only real issue I see. Of course its not about getting a dead person cameo but maybe getting a chance to convince their relative that you were right or having their merc group come after you so you can rid the world of more lawless ppl. Just something to make your playthrough feel special when you play renegade.

[Thargorichiban]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sure, them too, although in my experience Paragon players care and complain far less about what happened if you did things the other way and are all for other endings as long as they can get the one they want.  Could be I haven't been around the board long enough, though.

Paragons don't complain about anything because they have nothing to complain about.

That's because complaining is a Renegade action :innocent:

[Wulfram]

Saphra Deden wrote...

He had the chance to blow my head-off on the Reaper and didn't.

That just means he had a use for you.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

TheOptimist wrote...

Sure, them too, although in my experience Paragon players care and complain far less about what happened if you did things the other way and are all for other endings as long as they can get the one they want.  Could be I haven't been around the board long enough, though.

I suppose you're right,good point.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Thargorichiban wrote...
That's because complaining is a Renegade action :innocent:

QFT.


Kind of funny all the "renegades get the job done at any cost." comments,but if the cost is a cameo or an email,well that is a price too high.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 06:43 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Don't you get it? The point is that the game acknowledges the paragon choice. The universe recognizes it happened. For renegade choices you get nothing. And no, an empty chair is not a recognition of it happening.

Compared to when the seat is taken and you can very well hear the voice of the one sitting in it? Yes, it is.

No its not. How do you evne know anyone was supposed to sit there in the first place?
I'd have to play a paragon path first to see if anyone is missing. That's not recognition. That's a bunch of crap.

[TheOptimist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it doens't. Especially if you don't even know that someone was supposed to be on that chair!

Meeting some paragon cameo on Illum is unexpected. Not meeting anyone isn't.
Again, that's not recognition.

Recognizion would be going past Fisks house and see it boarded down and condemend. SEEING that the game acknowledges what you did.

Except Chora's Den is probably under new management and Fisk's home was most likely auctioned off or passed to next of kin. So instead he's just gone, every mark he was there erased.  Another notch on the gun of the Renegade and that's it.  I suppose they could have let you go to Feros and see a burned out wasteland slowly returning to it's natural state, but then you'd have complained more about all the people Paragon Shepard got to talk to.

Besides, you've got Conrad, Parasini, Wrex, all people you can be a complete ass too and still make fun of the next time around.

[Ryzaki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Don't you get it? The point is that the game acknowledges the paragon choice. The universe recognizes it happened. For renegade choices you get nothing. And no, an empty chair is not a recognition of it happening.

Compared to when the seat is taken and you can very well hear the voice of the one sitting in it? Yes, it is.

No its not. How do you evne know anyone was supposed to sit there in the first place?
I'd have to play a paragon path first to see if anyone is missing. That's not recognition. That's a bunch of crap.

Because the point of the renegade choice obviously wasn't to make sure you'd never see that person again right? And that they couldn't harm anyone else?  

All the renegade choices where you DON'T kill someone? Conrad? Still there. Siding with Lorik istead of Parsinii? You still meet her. New council? (that was kind of bull**** that you didn't see them I admit) it's acknowledged there's a new one and they don't want to see you. Feros? (I always get that sidequest renegade or paragon. I don't kill everyone though. Unnecessary with the grenandes)you still talk to the colonist. The gang leader? Still changed her ways. 

So YES the chair isn't empty on renegade decisions. it's only empty IF YOU KILLED THE PERSON WHO WOULD'VE SAT IN IT. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 06:48 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No its not. How do you evne know anyone was supposed to sit there in the first place?
I'd have to play a paragon path first to see if anyone is missing. That's not recognition. That's a bunch of crap.

I assumed that we were talking about the Council in which case, yes, it is a recognizable difference.

As for anyone else that you might have killed, why would their successor even bother with Shepard? To just get themselves killed too? Yeah. Great strategy you got there.

[TheOptimist]

Thargorichiban wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sure, them too, although in my experience Paragon players care and complain far less about what happened if you did things the other way and are all for other endings as long as they can get the one they want.  Could be I haven't been around the board long enough, though.

Paragons don't complain about anything because they have nothing to complain about.

That's because complaining is a Renegade action :innocent:

Well played.

[Someone With Mass]

Ryzaki wrote...

All the renegade choices where you DON'T kill someone? Conrad? Still there. Siding with Lorik istead of Parsinii? You still meet her. New council? (that was kind of bull**** that you didn't see them I admit) it's acknowledged there's a new one and they don't want to see you. Feros? (I always get that sidequest renegade or paragon. I don't kill everyone though. Unnecessary with the grenandes)you still talk to the colonist. The gang leader? Still changed her ways. 

Didn't Conrad get himself killed if Shepard rejected him?

[Ryzaki]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

All the renegade choices where you DON'T kill someone? Conrad? Still there. Siding with Lorik istead of Parsinii? You still meet her. New council? (that was kind of bull**** that you didn't see them I admit) it's acknowledged there's a new one and they don't want to see you. Feros? (I always get that sidequest renegade or paragon. I don't kill everyone though. Unnecessary with the grenandes)you still talk to the colonist. The gang leader? Still changed her ways. 

Didn't Conrad get himself killed if Shepard rejected him?

There's a renegade persuasion (the one he always ackowledges even to paragons by saying they put a gun in his face) where he lives. Him dying is the Shepard wasn't paragon/renegade enough choice. 

[Alamar2078]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...
As for the "optimal" outcome I hope there isn't some sort of obvious best choice no matter what your Shep's personality.

I'm with you here. Unfortunately, that also applies to patterns. There should be no pattern of obvious best choices. I will take the negative side effects of any decision if I can also achieve its objective. For instance:

On the Renegade side: I will risk a human dominated galaxy even though I don't want it, if that means I can better turn the tables on the Reapers by keeping the Collector base.

On the Paragon side: I will risk a hostile Rachni species by saving the queen, thus avoiding genocide, and accept additional casualties in the war as long as I still get a reasonably good victory.

I basically agree with you.  There shouldn't be a pattern like "Blue for the win!!!" to get the best / smurfy results.  I also believe that none of the "personality stereotypes" should get the best possible ending.

On top of the above I don't want it to be clear exactly what ending is really best.  For example maybe you save the Krogan but in the future maybe they revolt again.  Then again if you don't have the Krogan as shock troops maybe you loose the Turians or Earth or something else that's still "bad".   Perhaps "best" will only depend on your Shep's personality and even then maybe they have to make distasteful decisions to get their personal best ending.

BTW:  I mostly play Boyscouts with just a tinge of common sense.  I do stray from my basic formula enough to see the majority of the in-game content ....

[Killjoy Cutter]

When it comes to paragon and renegade "scrores", I just use Gibbed's Save Editor to max both out from the start, and then pick the action and conversation options that make the most sense for the Shep I'm playing.

[Ryzaki]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

When it comes to paragon and renegade "scrores", I just use Gibbed's Save Editor to max both out from the start, and then pick the action and conversation options that make the most sense for the Shep I'm playing.

Same. 

Playing full paragon or full renegade is just too facepalm inducing to me. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I've always been bemused by people who think that people who are killed should have no reflection later.

Revenge stories never occur to them? People angry that they are dead, or grateful? Others who benefited, or were worse off?

Given that the only way to kill Gianna, for example, made a great boon for Lorik Qui'in... why shouldn't killing Gianna have been reflected by Lorik?

If we killed the Rachni Queen, why shouldn't there be a Krogan to thank us (or berate us) for finishing off the Krogan's historic enemy be a counter-part to the Rachni Ambassador? Both hypothetical Krogan and Rachni Ambassador would be cameos made up to represent a choice rather than a return character themselves.

Why should Shiala be the personal connection to Feros in the first place? Elizabeth was a named character with nearly the exact same motivations that Shiala has for representing/helping the colonists, and Elizabeth had the added aspect of not being able to be killed.

Killing a character is never JUST about that character returning: it's also about the effects and alternatives. Sometimes killing a person should be for the best in noticed effects, and sometimes it shouldn't. But it should never be impossible to reflect it: you can nearly always find a basis or alternative.

Especially Rana Thanoplis's dialogue concerning Grunt and Okeer: character exposition should never be tied to unrelated characters' survival. That's just a bad flaw of story writing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sure, them too, although in my experience Paragon players care and complain far less about what happened if you did things the other way and are all for other endings as long as they can get the one they want.  Could be I haven't been around the board long enough, though.

Paragons don't complain about anything because they have less to complain about.

Fixed it for you, Saphra. I know I have a thing or two to complain about the Paragon path reflections (from the perspective of a Paragon).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 août 2011 - 06:58 .

[outmane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sure, them too, although in my experience Paragon players care and complain far less about what happened if you did things the other way and are all for other endings as long as they can get the one they want.  Could be I haven't been around the board long enough, though.

Paragons don't complain about anything because they have nothing to complain about.

I dunno about you but my paragon Shepard saved the Council but she still had to work with Cerberus to save the humans from extinction. She complained. A lot.

Shes also complaining about killing prisoners to save Jack, killing batarians to save the universe, letting Garrus become a killer because she had to die 2 years ago, having to deal with Aria, having to work with Thane, etc etc...

In other words, my Paragon Shep has guilt trips where my Renegade Shep is feeling hes been doing what he has to do to save the universe.

Modifié par outmane, 24 août 2011 - 06:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ryzaki wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Don't you get it? The point is that the game acknowledges the paragon choice. The universe recognizes it happened. For renegade choices you get nothing. And no, an empty chair is not a recognition of it happening.

Compared to when the seat is taken and you can very well hear the voice of the one sitting in it? Yes, it is.

No its not. How do you evne know anyone was supposed to sit there in the first place?
I'd have to play a paragon path first to see if anyone is missing. That's not recognition. That's a bunch of crap.

Because the point of the renegade choice obviously wasn't to make sure you'd never see that person again right? And that they couldn't harm anyone else?  

All the renegade choices where you DON'T kill someone? Conrad? Still there. Siding with Lorik istead of Parsinii? You still meet her. New council? (that was kind of bull**** that you didn't see them I admit) it's acknowledged there's a new one and they don't want to see you. Feros? (I always get that sidequest renegade or paragon. I don't kill everyone though. Unnecessary with the grenandes)you still talk to the colonist. The gang leader? Still changed her ways. 

So YES the chair isn't empty on renegade decisions. it's only empty IF YOU KILLED THE PERSON WHO WOULD'VE SAT IN IT. 

HOW SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEEING THAT PERSON AGAIN?

Lord, the stupidity is unbelievable. Do you know what ACKNOWLEDGMENT means? At all?
Doesn't matter who acknowledges or how - only that it does happen.

For example, if you killed Fisk, Harkin might mention it when you talk to him (something like "art you the one that killed Fisk?".. or something like that). Or you get an e-mail. Or you see a news report that mentions what you did (example - a new report on Novaria) Or something. There's a million ways player actions - paragon OR renegade - can be acknowledged.