631 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

Rana isn't there for exposition - I can't think of anything of note she tells you that Okeer doesn't. She's there as one of those negative consequences for being paragon which people are always complaining don't exist.

She's the biggest source of info on the sort of person we're going to recruit. She's the equivalent of, oh, the police officer on the Samara recruitment mission. Or those Salarians on Thane. The recruitment missions were about the buildup of the person before we got to them, and Nassana was a cornerstone of Okeer's (already brief) role.

There's no intrinsic or logical reason why Nasana needed to be the one to fulfil such a role, or be there in the first place. What's the design rational for trying character development to an arbitrarily linked to an unrelated, optional third party?

[SpiderguyZER0]

Xilizhra wrote...

jtav wrote...

No, but I'm sick of the game punishing me as a player for doing what I thought best. I'n sick of gambles paying off repeatedly against all reason. I'm sick of BW enshrining principles I think are immoral.

And what principles would those be?

Yes I would like to know as well. I'm going to assume you play a goody twoshoes paragon? as do I, but I would rather be a good person overall which means sometimes the renegade choice makes more sense. Kinda like in Fable 3 where you had to be an ass to save everyone. it went against my principles, but all my citizens still live.

[Norskebanan]

disregarding paragon or renegade hoopla, I believe every chat wheel should at least have the option to biotic charge.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

*RENEGADE HATE*

Deal with it.

I hope you'll enjoy if I don't shut up and bow down to kiss your ass, then. I'll still argue for equality among the morals and choices that matter, you know, as they initially advertised. You seem to be angered that you don't get all the exclusive morality cameos, I understand how you'd feel after being catered to and feeling special all these years, I'd feel entitled too.

Yet, you need to realize you're being selfish and looking like a gigantic douche when you're telling people to "DEAL WITH IT" or calling people idiots / retards for not supporting the morality you support. If you can't deal with the arguments and don't like it when people are trying to argue for equality, rather than making yourself look bad, avoid the thread.

I've seen you perfectly rational outside these threads, it almost looks like you're capable of a conversation without typing "DEAL WITH IT" each two posts. I'd advise you stay in those, maybe get some R&R in the Tali thread. You've got PTSD (Paragon Tramatic Stress Disorder).

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since when did something have to be unique to Renegades to be a flaw Renegades have?

Heck, the only reason I'm not the first to argue that Paragons are screwed by the Collector Base decision (because nearly all the reasons for destroying it are subverted by post-ME2 plot) is because of the many other people ahead of me.

I never said it wasn't a flaw for renegades. I'm just saying they're not the only ones affected by it. 

I know.

Can you please elaborate on Paragons being screwed by the CB decision? (smiley as a joke)

I assume you mean that since Cerberus does what it's doing anyways, it doesn't matter?

Exactly.

The biggest (player) provided reasons for destroying the Collector base have always been that destroying it would deny it to Cerberus so that Cerberus couldn't screw up and create a disaster/use the tech against others/be indoctrinated and become the Reaper's servants.

Then Cerberus implants Reaper tech in Grayson in Retribution which snowballs into a Reaper avatar on the loose, sets up bases beyond the Omega 4 relay to create an army of abominations to attack Omega and who knows who else, and still becomes the most common foe of ME3.

So, like, what else was the point? Besides the Shepard-declared moral-feelgood? 

I'm not much inclined towards all the Paragon choices, but even I feel that one hasn't been well played since ME2.

[nitefyre410]

Norskebanan wrote...

disregarding paragon or renegade hoopla, I believe every chat wheel should at least have the option to biotic charge.

 

^ This because Biotic Charge is appicalble in all situations

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Norskebanan wrote...

disregarding paragon or renegade hoopla, I believe every chat wheel should at least have the option to biotic charge.

 

^ This because Biotic Charge is appicalble in all situations

[Dave of Canada]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it isn't. All you are accepting when you kill a character is that you've killed that character. Nobody expects a dead character to show up again, but their death doesn't exist in a vacuum. It should affect others who will in turn affect Shepard.

Example from KOTOR:
You killed Juhani, she's dead.
However, the Jedi Council mentions this and later in the game you'll encounter her lover who's turned over to the Dark Side to try and avenge her. You're getting an entire scenario around that choice you've done, people acknowledge you've killed her.

You miss out on a companion, yet you get a scene play out differently as acknowledgement of your choices. It isn't some vacuum (as you put it) where Juhani died and nobody gave a damn throughout the Galaxy.

[JGDD]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Rana isn't there for exposition - I can't think of anything of note she tells you that Okeer doesn't. She's there as one of those negative consequences for being paragon which people are always complaining don't exist.

She's the biggest source of info on the sort of person we're going to recruit. She's the equivalent of, oh, the police officer on the Samara recruitment mission. Or those Salarians on Thane. The recruitment missions were about the buildup of the person before we got to them, and Nassana was a cornerstone of Okeer's (already brief) role.

There's no intrinsic or logical reason why Nasana needed to be the one to fulfil such a role, or be there in the first place. What's the design rational for trying character development to an arbitrarily linked to an unrelated, optional third party?

Those Asari all look the same....

Rana, not Nasana in the above.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Exactly.

The biggest (player) provided reasons for destroying the Collector base have always been that destroying it would deny it to Cerberus so that Cerberus couldn't screw up and create a disaster/use the tech against others/be indoctrinated and become the Reaper's servants.

Then Cerberus implants Reaper tech in Grayson in Retribution which snowballs into a Reaper avatar on the loose, sets up bases beyond the Omega 4 relay to create an army of abominations to attack Omega and who knows who else, and still becomes the most common foe of ME3.

So, like, what else was the point? Besides the Shepard-declared moral-feelgood? 

I'm not much inclined towards all the Paragon choices, but even I feel that one hasn't been well played since ME2.

I see

Yea I agree, but honestly I did not expect much from that choice and the others, cynical being that I am.
Thank you for explaning.

[outmane]

Wulfram wrote...

Rana isn't there for exposition - I can't think of anything of note she tells you that Okeer doesn't. She's there as one of those negative consequences for being paragon which people are always complaining don't exist.

Thats how i saw it too... She's there to guilt trip your paragon before heading out to make more unethical researches. Just like you learn a bit of about the ardath yakshi (?) if you let Elnora live but you also free a criminal.

That said, There is still the need for more renegade specific cameos.

[Dean_the_Young]

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Rana isn't there for exposition - I can't think of anything of note she tells you that Okeer doesn't. She's there as one of those negative consequences for being paragon which people are always complaining don't exist.

She's the biggest source of info on the sort of person we're going to recruit. She's the equivalent of, oh, the police officer on the Samara recruitment mission. Or those Salarians on Thane. The recruitment missions were about the buildup of the person before we got to them, and Nassana was a cornerstone of Okeer's (already brief) role.

There's no intrinsic or logical reason why Nasana needed to be the one to fulfil such a role, or be there in the first place. What's the design rational for trying character development to an arbitrarily linked to an unrelated, optional third party?

Those Asari all look the same....

Rana, not Nasana in the above.

Hey, they all end in A. And creep me out the more people try and treat them like sex-interests. (Bioware so missed a chance to invert the alien space babe trope by applying some xeno-culture gaps: 'Shepard, you want me to put my tongue where? I intend to kiss you with this mouth, you understand?)

[Mr_Steph]

Well there can be a lot of stuff that could follow this. Letting the council live could potentially backfire as they are...well...often quite stupid IMO. Having the humans control the council and make the important decisions could end up being a good thing...saving the council doesn't necessarily mean you will have an easier time getting the other races to fight for you either. The Rachni could end up working for the Reaper, all the indoctrinated so you have to fight a lot of them etc. It will be interesting to see what ends up mattering and how our decisions will affect it all

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Exactly.

The biggest (player) provided reasons for destroying the Collector base have always been that destroying it would deny it to Cerberus so that Cerberus couldn't screw up and create a disaster/use the tech against others/be indoctrinated and become the Reaper's servants.

Then Cerberus implants Reaper tech in Grayson in Retribution which snowballs into a Reaper avatar on the loose, sets up bases beyond the Omega 4 relay to create an army of abominations to attack Omega and who knows who else, and still becomes the most common foe of ME3.

So, like, what else was the point? Besides the Shepard-declared moral-feelgood? 

I'm not much inclined towards all the Paragon choices, but even I feel that one hasn't been well played since ME2.

I see

Yea I agree, but honestly I did not expect much from that choice and the others, cynical being that I am.
Thank you for explaning.

I'm in too good of a mood today.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since when did something have to be unique to Renegades to be a flaw Renegades have?

Heck, the only reason I'm not the first to argue that Paragons are screwed by the Collector Base decision (because nearly all the reasons for destroying it are subverted by post-ME2 plot) is because of the many other people ahead of me.

I never said it wasn't a flaw for renegades. I'm just saying they're not the only ones affected by it. 

I know.

[TheOptimist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

*RENEGADE HATE*

Deal with it.

I'll still argue for equality among the morals and choices that matter, you know, as they initially advertised.

They are equal.  There is not one negative consequence for either Paragon or Renegade choices in the game.

Yet, you need to realize you're being selfish and looking like a gigantic douche when you're telling people to "DEAL WITH IT" or calling people idiots / retards for not supporting the morality you support. If you can't deal with the arguments and don't like it when people are trying to argue for equality, rather than making yourself look bad, avoid the thread.

I've seen you perfectly rational outside these threads, it almost looks like you're capable of a conversation without typing "DEAL WITH IT" each two posts. I'd advise you stay in those, maybe get some R&R in the Tali thread. You've got PTSD (Paragon Tramatic Stress Disorder).

Would that be opposed by RDS (Renegade Derangment Syndrome), where otherwise intelligent people continue to insist they've been punished by being given exactly what their choices indicated they wanted?

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 08:04 .

[Jog0907]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Newsflash. If the game doens't revolve around Shpe, why are all the ther cameos there? Why is that asari from the Thorian there?

Because my Shepard let them live?

Why is she THERE specificly? What are the chances she'll run into Shep again?

Why are all the other camoes of Shep paragon choices there? While, to acknowledge the choice of course.. and because the universe DOES revolve around Sheppard apparently.

So tell me.. Why isnt' there a colonist from the colony there to thank me for killing her? Why isn't there a Krogan there to thank me for killing hte Rachnii queen? Why isn't there a son/relative of Fisk there to extract vengance?
Why isnt' there ANYTHING to show the game it acknowledges that happened?

The krogan dont really give a **** about the rachni since most likely the info that shep let the queen live is not public knowledge, so there should be no krogan besides probably wrex that know about that and even then I think he has bigger problems than that.
The colonists probably dont care either since most of them may not be even aware that the thorian was capable of making clones of an asari he captured, one doesnt appear because there is nothing to be thankful for besides saving the colony adn killing the thorian which they already expressed their thanks to shepard two years ago.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I really hope they give renegades cameos in ME3.

The complaining is awful.

Hoepfully BW delivers the fabled consequences,and maybe ME3 will be packed to the brim with renegade decisions paying off,even if the pay off is Cerberus troops being able to curb-stomp you,and paragon gambles turning against us and we have to go fix some of that.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 08:10 .

[outmane]

Mr_Steph wrote...

Well there can be a lot of stuff that could follow this. Letting the council live could potentially backfire as they are...well...often quite stupid IMO. Having the humans control the council and make the important decisions could end up being a good thing...saving the council doesn't necessarily mean you will have an easier time getting the other races to fight for you either. The Rachni could end up working for the Reaper, all the indoctrinated so you have to fight a lot of them etc. It will be interesting to see what ends up mattering and how our decisions will affect it all

Well i sent 10k soldiers to death to save them and they did not help me save humans from the Collectors, forcing me to associate with the ppl who tried to kill me on Akuze. Could we call that backfireing ?


Of course if I hadnt saved the Council, I would still have to work with Cerberus. But Shep doesnt know that. Its all player hindsight. And thats what ruins the game.

[Ryzaki]

Well there better be some acknowledgement of all the peeps I let die in the suicide mission. And if they have any vital to the plot information I better be able to get another way.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 08:12 .

[Dean_the_Young]

I suppose that must be half-glass-full syndrome, Optimist, in which the half of the glass with water is equal to the half of the glass without it. Because clearly a glass half-full person gets what their manner indicates what they want while the glass half-empty is equally rewarded.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 août 2011 - 08:11 .

[Dean_the_Young]

outmane wrote...

Mr_Steph wrote...

Well there can be a lot of stuff that could follow this. Letting the council live could potentially backfire as they are...well...often quite stupid IMO. Having the humans control the council and make the important decisions could end up being a good thing...saving the council doesn't necessarily mean you will have an easier time getting the other races to fight for you either. The Rachni could end up working for the Reaper, all the indoctrinated so you have to fight a lot of them etc. It will be interesting to see what ends up mattering and how our decisions will affect it all

Well i sent 10k soldiers to death to save them and they did not help me save humans from the Collectors, forcing me to associate with the ppl who tried to kill me on Akuze. Could we call that backfireing ?

Since them not helping wasn't a consequence of the choice, but an identical event between the two of them... no.

Now, if the if the Paragon Council would, say, let the Earth burn if you relied upon the Council to organize the liberation of Earth, while the Human-dominated Council could keep the aliens from doing so, that would be a backfiring.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Well there better be some acknowledgement of all the peeps I let die in the suicide mission. And if they have any vital to the plot information I better be able to get another way.  

I'm waiting to see what happens if you sell Legion to Cerberus.

That's not just the loss of a team-mate... that's the effective 'did not do' of a war-shaping loyalty mission.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Well there better be some acknowledgement of all the peeps I let die in the suicide mission. And if they have any vital to the plot information I better be able to get another way.  

I'm waiting to see what happens if you sell Legion to Cerberus.

That's not just the loss of a team-mate... that's the effective 'did not do' of a war-shaping loyalty mission.

If I still have to fight hordes of geth despite blowing up the heretic base....<_<