631 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOptimist]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I really hope they give renegades cameos in ME3.

The complaining is awful.

Here's hoping a bioware programmer makes up a list of names of people you've killed and every single one says something along the lines of

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.

Here's hoping.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

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.

You haven't played LOtSB? It kills the science team and escapes, I don't see how it would know you sold it,so it would continue on their mission.


Which is of course,to find you and co-operate wit organics...or just find you and ask for your help..w/e...

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 08:20 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

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....<_<

Well, that one is still coverable by two means:

1) The Heretic geth pockets that were always going to survive even if you tried to virus ALL the Heretics, let alone the heretics not at the base.

2) Cerberus's Overlord, being boosted by the Reapers to some degree.

3) The Heretic Virus itself, which the Reapers should be able to recreate.

and

4) True Geth on the wrong side of the battlefield do to an unavoidable Geth-Quarian fight Shepard has to get through (even if it's to stop the fighting)

[outmane]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

The thing is Shepard only sees one outcome. 

Trying to compare outcomes from different paths will only lead to searching for the 'optimal solution' as player instead of immersion and role playing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

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.

You haven't played LOtSB? It kills the science team and escapes, I don't see how it would know you sold it,so it would continue on their mission.

LotSB doesn't say it escapes or kills the science team. That's a fan-theory, but the Broker dossier ends with communication pad being turned off, but nothing else. The Cerberus team re-enacting quarantine successfully is just as possible.

Legion's mission also needed the Normandy to get in via stealth. There's no impetus or implication that Legion would succede regardless, especially since that loyalty mission was of the 'and Shepard arrived just in time' sort.

[Dean_the_Young]

outmane wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

The thing is Shepard only sees one outcome.

Fortunately, the player can know the difference. And we are the players, and we are comparing the differences from an out-of-game viewpoint in evaluating the quality of two alternatives.

Trying to compare outcomes from different paths will only lead to searching for the 'optimal solution' as player instead of immersion and role playing.

For a character, yes. For a player, being able to appreciate the overall product is another part of the enjoyment. For a critique of the product, comparison is necessary.

[Someone With Mass]

TheOptimist wrote...

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?

Sounds more like RSS (Renegade Stockholm Syndrome) to me. 

[Dean_the_Young]

TheOptimist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I really hope they give renegades cameos in ME3.

The complaining is awful.

Here's hoping a bioware programmer makes up a list of names of people you've killed and every single one says something along the lines of

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.

Here's hoping.

Actually, over-compensation is just as bad as not having equality at all.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I really hope they give renegades cameos in ME3.

The complaining is awful.

Here's hoping a bioware programmer makes up a list of names of people you've killed and every single one says something along the lines of

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.

Here's hoping.

Actually, over-compensation is just as bad as not having equality at all.

Ah,well then renegades should just stfu and wait for ME3 then?


Awesome, /thread

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 08:28 .

[wolfennights]

My first time through, letting the Council die felt right.

People say that they hate that the Paragon and Renegade system is so black and white, but it's really not (mostly). Paragon = for the good of the entire galaxy, saving as many as possible, even if it means the bad guy gets away. Renegade = for the good of humanity, completing the mission even at the cost of others. This is why if you have the Ruthless backstory, Anderson comments that Shepard "gets the job done, no matter what the cost."

I would say that it become a little more good and evil in ME2, with the Paragon interrupts including healing NPC's, hugging squadmates, preventing a squaddie from shooting a character and Renegade interrupts including killing or hurting people just cus they ****** you off.

[Dean_the_Young]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ah,well then renegades should just stfu then?


Awesome, /thread

That was a bad position to take. You should feel bad. 'No change' and 'overcompensating' aren't binary, while conceding that there is an error that can be corrected undermines prior-arguments to the contrary.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 août 2011 - 08:32 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ah,well then renegades should just stfu then?


Awesome, /thread

That was a bad position to take. You should feel bad. 'No change' and 'overcompensating' aren't binary.

Well, I already took the equality route,and I still beleive in it, but ME 1 & 2 have already happened,no use ****ing about it now,we can only look to the future,which is why I revised my post.

[outmane]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]

The thing is Shepard only sees one outcome.

[/quote]

Fortunately, the player can know the difference. And we are the players, and we are comparing the differences from an out-of-game viewpoint in evaluating the quality of two alternatives.

[quote]
Trying to compare outcomes from different paths will only lead to searching for the 'optimal solution' as player instead of immersion and role playing.

[/quote]For a character, yes. For a player, being able to appreciate the overall product is another part of the enjoyment. For a critique of the product, comparison is necessary.
[/quote]

[/quote]

But as a player you can also understand that both paths werent made to be compared but to give the players some fun and a happy ending. No matter how many ppl you kill / dont kill. It wasnt made to make sense overall and offer a 'real solution' or a 'realistic approach'. 

Modifié par outmane, 24 août 2011 - 08:35 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ah,well then renegades should just stfu then?


Awesome, /thread

That was a bad position to take. You should feel bad. 'No change' and 'overcompensating' aren't binary.

Well, I already took the equality route,and I still beleive in it, but ME 1 & 2 have already happened,no use ****ing about it now,we can only look to the future,which is why I revised my post.

Actually, there is point of pointing it now: pointing it now rather than just meekly ignorring it raises awareness not only to developers, but other consumers. The more consumers who share a view, the clearer and more coherent the message developers can receive when making future products... in this case, the still under-production content of ME3.

It's the wonderful system known as 'feedback.' And between raising a good point about how not to do it so that more people share a level of reasonable expectations and desires the developers might take care to meet, and boring some person who's tired of a thread they don't have to stick around in, I'll choose the former. After all, if the developers make one change I like then I'll be happier while if they don't I won't, while if you simply leave the thread then you'reequally as well off as if everyone 'shuts the **** up' at your whim and doesn't talk about things you don't agree with.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 août 2011 - 08:43 .

[Dean_the_Young]

outmane wrote...

But as a player you can also understand that both paths werent made to be compared but to give the players some fun and a happy ending. No matter how many ppl you kill / dont kill. It wasnt made to make sense overall and offer a 'real solution' or a 'realistic approach'. 

They were made to be compared by players. Mass Effect is designed and advertised as a game to encourage repeat playthroughs on both styles, and in doing so it claims intent to deliver an equal quality of game in both. It isn't a double-blind game, where playing through one time has no bearing or relevance to the other. It's a game which claims critical acclaim by seeking to be able to appreciate both as well done.

The design claim wasn't that one path would be 'fun' and the other 'happy', but rather that 'there would be hard choices with no best answer.' While 'best' is often up for dispute in terms of outcome, there are plenty of standards in which more content/validation/future prospects is 'better' than less or even absence.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't need the game to tell me anything. But the game should be equal to both paragons and renegades.

And no, it odens't explain anything. Why was she on Illum specificly. right in that very same building where Sheppard was? Why were all the others cameos?

Your arguments make no sense as usual...

Your counter-arguments are weak as usual. What else is new.

Trust me. People can live without pointless cameos. Like Rana. There was really no other reason for her to be in ME2, other than to tell the player that she's alive, and might plot something against Shepard in the future. 

If you've killed her, then none are the wiser, except you, because you know that she can't torment anyone else anymore with her BS.

You don't need the equivalent of a big fat neon sign smacking you in the face with the text "GOOD JOB!" to know that you probably did something good by your own morals and standards. 

If you don't feel good about a character and you dealt with him/her, they're gone, and you know it. SImple as that.

You do not even grasp what's this all about, do you?

It's not about the game telling me X is right or wrong. It's about the game acknowledging X happened AT ALL.

[TheOptimist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

]Actually, there is point of pointing it now: pointing it now rather than just meekly ignorring it raises awareness not only to developers, but other consumers. The more consumers who share a view, the clearer and more coherent the message developers can receive when making future products... in this case, the still under-production content of ME3.

This is only a good thing if they're complaining about an actual problem and not the fact that they got exactly what their choices implied.

It's the wonderful system known as 'feedback.' And between raising a good point about how not to do it so that more people share a level of reasonable expectations and desires the developers might take care to meet, and boring some person who's tired of a thread they don't have to stick around in, I'll choose the former. After all, if the developers make one change I like then I'll be happier, while if you simply leave the thread then you're happier as well and you lose nothing.

But since so many people are arguing for changes like, for example, required sacrifices, no truly happy endings, and punishment of paragon players, I have to stick around to let Bioware know that there are those of us who DON'T want to see those things happen.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 08:46 .

[TheOptimist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The design claim wasn't that one path would be 'fun' and the other 'happy', but rather that 'there would be hard choices with no best answer.' While 'best' is often up for dispute in terms of outcome, there are plenty of standards in which more content/validation/future prospects is 'better' than less or even absence.

If you made a choice to kill someone, you have made a choice that you do not want that person in the next game.  I continue to be amazed that people expected there to be any other result other than that persons continued state of unlife.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...
I'm not going to dispute that the Mass effect universe seems to have a certain shepard-centric bent, but there are only a handful of people that show up again, most just email you.

The e-mail is acknowledgment of your actions.
Nothingness is not acknowledgment.

So tell me.. Why isnt' there a colonist from the colony there to thank me for killing her?

Because the colonists are dead too?

Who said I killed them?

 

Why isn't there a Krogan there to thank me for killing hte Rachnii queen?

For what, he'd just have done it if you didn't have the quad.  Seriously, why do you think a Krogan would care about you killing the Rachni again? They have much bigger problems and concerns, and the decision to eradicate the Rachni was the Council's, not the Krogan's.

Why? Because krogans hate the rachni, that's why.
 

Why isn't there a son/relative of Fisk there to extract vengance?

Because they know you'd kill them too.

That doens't stop half the galaxy from going agsinst Shep.

Why isnt' there ANYTHING to show the game it acknowledges that happened?

In all seriousness, because killing people tends to leave the universe an emptier place.  Sometimes it's necessary, but it's always a solemn decision.  My Shep let Garrus kill Sidonius in this last game, and I expect my reward to be his absence from ME3.  My Shep let Wrex kill Fisk in ME1, and I expected Fisk not to bother me again.  Your reward for killing people is their absense.  You can either take solace in that or not.

No. Killing people has an effect. Not on just the poeple you killed, but on others too.
I don't want a reward. I want the game to acknowledge what was done - like it does with Paragons.

It can be some character, e-mail or a news report. SOMTHING.

[outmane]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

outmane wrote...

But as a player you can also understand that both paths werent made to be compared but to give the players some fun and a happy ending. No matter how many ppl you kill / dont kill. It wasnt made to make sense overall and offer a 'real solution' or a 'realistic approach'. 

They were made to be compared by players. Mass Effect is designed and advertised as a game to encourage repeat playthroughs on both styles, and in doing so it claims intent to deliver an equal quality of game in both. It isn't a double-blind game, where playing through one time has no bearing or relevance to the other. It's a game which claims critical acclaim by seeking to be able to appreciate both as well done.

The design claim wasn't that one path would be 'fun' and the other 'happy', but rather that 'there would be hard choices with no best answer.' While 'best' is often up for dispute in terms of outcome, there are plenty of standards in which more content/validation/future prospects is 'better' than less or even absence.

Im all with you on the more content/acknowledgment needed for renegades. I do play a few of them 

All im saying is enjoying the game is easier if youre in the mindset of 'what happens is the result of my actions'. Trying to bring the best outcome from hindsight makes for lifeless playthrough.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You do not even grasp what's this all about, do you?

It's not about the game telling me X is right or wrong. It's about the game acknowledging X happened AT ALL.

Yes. I fail to grasp why that even matters. Which I don't think it does when we're talking about five minute-cameos like Rana.

Don't tell me that the death of the Council isn't acknowledged just because the new members don't feel like meeting you.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 août 2011 - 09:06 .

[SpiderguyZER0]

I don't get all this Paragon/Renegade hate. If we want to be honest they are both broken. you can't always do good without bad consequences. And you can't always be a hardass without doing some good. Arrival's ending is proof of this. Paragon and renegade are ambiguous neither is right neither is wrong If you want to complain about one then then you're complaining about the other.

[outmane]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You do not even grasp what's this all about, do you?

It's not about the game telling me X is right or wrong. It's about the game acknowledging X happened AT ALL.

Yes. I fail to grasp why that even matters. Which I don't think it does when we're taling about five minute-cameos like Rana.

Don't tell me that the death of the Council isn't acknowledged just because the new members don't feel like meeting you.

Smaller scale decisions arent acknowledged as much for renegade then for paragon.

And specially, they arent acknowledged in a way that rewards the play style. No one tries to take revenge on you and you cant convince ppl what you did was for the best. Whereas, paragon get ppl thanking you or making you feel guilty, which both help the player immersion.

Nothing needs to be taken away from paragons. Renegade choices just need to be reflected better.
You enjoyed playing paragon? Imagine if renegade could be just as fun.

A little thanking and a little guilting goes a long way.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The design claim wasn't that one path would be 'fun' and the other 'happy', but rather that 'there would be hard choices with no best answer.' While 'best' is often up for dispute in terms of outcome, there are plenty of standards in which more content/validation/future prospects is 'better' than less or even absence.

If you made a choice to kill someone, you have made a choice that you do not want that person in the next game.  I continue to be amazed that people expected there to be any other result other than that persons continued state of unlife.

What?

Are you even reading? That's not what people are asking for you twit! You've been repeatign the same line a dozen times, even tough people have tried several tiems to explain to you that that's NOT what they're askign for.

If you can't even be bothered to excercise some basic reading comprehension, then don't dare to assuem you know waht I wanted.