631 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Hmmm ... I guess this thread got derailed in a big way ...

Anything that could potentially turn into P v R will, even an innocent thread will be derailed,pretty much standard operating procedure.

[JGDD]

Someone With Mass wrote...

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Insulted because you couldn't differentiate Saphra calling people 'idiots' or 'hypocrites' from an in-game persona. Do I really need to make that any clearer?

Your link to some other topic is irrelevant. Make your point here.

Wow, so people can get away with insulting other people and just say "I was pretending that I was my in-game character, hur dur"?

I have to admit, I thought BSN was above that level of childishness by now. Apparently, I was wrong.

ohhh boy...

Look, Saphra has even stated to RP in some of these arguments. I'm not the one getting offended here by mere words. Some of you are and it takes the fun out of Saphra's stance. From an in-game persona with that alignment, sure, some of you are idiots and hypocrites. Then again, from my 180 degree persona, Saphra is the devil and should be crushed under the heel of my boot with great prejudice.

If you people don't get it that's fine. I will not engage/challenge your views because it's apparent you aren't built for debate.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Please explain how stating someone is throwing out insults is the same as feeling insulted

[JGDD]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Please explain how stating someone is throwing out insults is the same as feeling insulted

We're getting dangerously far off-topic here. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

I promise not to be offended by anything you say.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Please explain how stating someone is throwing out insults is the same as feeling insulted

We're getting dangerously far off-topic here. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

I promise not to be offended by anything you say.

Please go troll somewhere else.

[Someone With Mass]

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

ohhh boy...

Look, Saphra has even stated to RP in some of these arguments. I'm not the one getting offended here by mere words. Some of you are and it takes the fun out of Saphra's stance. From an in-game persona with that alignment, sure, some of you are idiots and hypocrites. Then again, from my 180 degree persona, Saphra is the devil and should be crushed under the heel of my boot with great prejudice.

If you people don't get it that's fine. I will not engage/challenge your views because it's apparent you aren't built for debate.

I am fully capable of having a debate. When the one I'm debating with isn't retreating to their little hidey spot and assumes that they can get away with anything whenever they want just because they have a special little friend.

Because that's not a debate.

[Goneaviking]

Humanoid_Typhoon 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. 

It could very well mean red options, that people seem to think are pure logic and rationale,aren't really as an intelligent a decision as first suspected.

Given that devout renegade players sometimes insist that their decision is the only option that make sense (I've seen threads where that stance was explicitly stated in regards to both the Council and Collector Base missions) I think that's exactly what will happen.

Ideally it will mean that the developers think through options so that the flow on effect is plausible in the game, rather than simply rewarding nice boys and girls and punishing naughty ones.

[Boiny Bunny]

Please take off topic posts and insults elsewhere.

This thread is NOT about paragon bashing, or paragon versus renegade.

It is about either of paragon or renegade decisions not working out the way that you/Shepard thought that they would, or would have liked them to.

If you cannot stick to the topic, please do not post here.

[Boiny Bunny]

Goneaviking wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon 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. 

It could very well mean red options, that people seem to think are pure logic and rationale,aren't really as an intelligent a decision as first suspected.

Given that devout renegade players sometimes insist that their decision is the only option that make sense (I've seen threads where that stance was explicitly stated in regards to both the Council and Collector Base missions) I think that's exactly what will happen.

Ideally it will mean that the developers think through options so that the flow on effect is plausible in the game, rather than simply rewarding nice boys and girls and punishing naughty ones.

I'd like to see them have an equal share of rewarding and punishing both paragon and renegade players.

It's all very well to talk about the theory of meta-gaming, but the simple truth is, if Balak does not return in ME3 (provided you saved the hostages and let him escape), then whenever I play ME1 again, I will always save the hostages - even though I regard it to be a foolish decision based on information available at the time, if I know that there will be no consequences to letting Balak get away, I'll always let him get away.

If there are no consequences to decisions, then there are effectively no decisions, other than making Shepard sound like a nice or a mean person.

[Markinator_123]

I can see rewriting the heretics having disastrous consequences.

[Someone With Mass]

Markinator_123 wrote...

I can see rewriting the heretics having disastrous consequences.

It could always spread a secret Reaper virus, turning all the geth into heretics, but that sounds a little too far fetched for me.

One of the few ways I can see that choice go bad for you, is if you're all for the extermination of the geth or through some mistake turned the geth against you.

[Sisterofshane]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

It's all very well to talk about the theory of meta-gaming, but the simple truth is, if Balak does not return in ME3 (provided you saved the hostages and let him escape), then whenever I play ME1 again, I will always save the hostages - even though I regard it to be a foolish decision based on information available at the time, if I know that there will be no consequences to letting Balak get away, I'll always let him get away.

If there are no consequences to decisions, then there are effectively no decisions, other than making Shepard sound like a nice or a mean person.

This is where I disagree.  Just because there are no discernable consequences from taking the Paragon/Renegade stance over the other, doesn't mean that the choice is necessarily the "right" one.

Some people may just want to kill Balak anyways, even if he went on to be a reformed batarian in the end that never caused trouble again.  Others never intended to kill Balak in the first place, so letting him escape is not such a bad thing.  Depending on how you role play, the consequences may not always influence your decision.

The fact that you are hung up on making the "right" choice may mean that you weren't very sure with your original decision to begin with.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Feros: Paragon - letting Shiala live. Shiala had the cipher. She wanted to help the colony to make amends. She still might have information on the Thorian's memories about the last Reaping. Renegade: She's dead and that may be lost.

Noveria: Rachni Queen: this is an interesting one that could go either way. However THIS Rachni Queen might teach her colony the right song. However, there are probably other Rachni ships floating around and then there are the Cerberus experiments .... we'd end up fighting some Rachni anyway regardless of the decision.

Virmire: Wrex -- Wrex is a wild card. I used my intimidate skill on him to get him to stand down in one game. Shot him in another. Breeding facility destroyed regardless.

Council: I really don't see how saving them has a downside. Wait, I do now. It still leaves the Citadel as the center of government. Whereas if you sacrificed them to go after Sovereign, you ****** off the major civs, who still have a representative on the council, but they might also decentralize which might make the Reaper's conquest more difficult. However, this too may bite you in that when you need help you might not get it unless you give help first -- which may mean sacrificing Earth.

Bring Down The Sky: Balak -- the only two outcomes I've done is put a bullet in his head or turned him over to the SA.

ME2: Got Spectre Status reinstated. Again, I don't see a downside -- it's a paycheck at worst.

Only a few things I can see in ME2 that are really important. ME2 was more of a bridge game.

* I don't see Vido being a major player in 3

* I think Patriarch will play a bigger role if you became his Krannt and have more influence with Aria regarding TIM.
* other than that, just general reputation for either being a badass or a ****, as Jack calls it.
* CB -- good sides and bad side to both decisions
* Geth -- probably the most important decision next to Tali.
* Tali vs. Evidence -- Lose Tali's loyalty but gain the Quarians? If you do this AND weaken the Geth, do the Quarians get their homeworld? Quarians might be able to reprogram the Geth, but Tali hates you.
* Arrival -- what good is a 20 minute warning going to be to a colony of 300,000? There's nothing they could have done anyway. I don't see a paragon/renegade choice that would be either beneficial or harmful.

It will be interesting.

[Boiny Bunny]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

It's all very well to talk about the theory of meta-gaming, but the simple truth is, if Balak does not return in ME3 (provided you saved the hostages and let him escape), then whenever I play ME1 again, I will always save the hostages - even though I regard it to be a foolish decision based on information available at the time, if I know that there will be no consequences to letting Balak get away, I'll always let him get away.

If there are no consequences to decisions, then there are effectively no decisions, other than making Shepard sound like a nice or a mean person.

This is where I disagree.  Just because there are no discernable consequences from taking the Paragon/Renegade stance over the other, doesn't mean that the choice is necessarily the "right" one.

Some people may just want to kill Balak anyways, even if he went on to be a reformed batarian in the end that never caused trouble again.  Others never intended to kill Balak in the first place, so letting him escape is not such a bad thing.  Depending on how you role play, the consequences may not always influence your decision.

That depends entirely on your stance on roleplaying in general.  Some people enjoy games where they have no ability to control the plot whatsoever, and every decision they make leads to the exact same result.  The only thing they do have control over, is their character's personality.  Whenever they make a 'decision', all they are actually deciding on is whether their character say something in a nice way, or a mean way.  Dragon Age 2 is a great example of a game that does this.  It sounds to me like this is satisfactory to you.

Other people, prefer their decisions to have actual consequences, and measure the roleplaying experience of the game through the differing impacts of their actions - without caring much for the character's way of saying things.

So, what I'm saying is, when I am making the Balak decision, I'm thinking about the consequences of killing him, versus letting him go.  I don't give a damn if my Shepard 'feels good' for killing him or saving the hostages.  If there are no consequences to letting him go, the decision is already made.  Consequences wise, you've saved 5 people at absolutely no cost whatsoever.

The fact that you are hung up on making the "right" choice may mean that you weren't very sure with your original decision to begin with.

That is not even remotely true.  As I explained above, I make my decisions based on consequences.  At the time of playing BDtS, given the information at the time, my decision is to kill Balak every single time, utterly regardless of whether I am playing paragon or renegade Shepard.  Once ME3 is out, I'll have more information (in fact, the complete set of information) on whether there are any consequences to letting him go or not.  If there are none, I'll never bother killing him again, because there is no point.  5 people die for nothing at all.

Please do not attempt to inform me of the certainty of my own choices.  Choices are based on information that you have at the time you make them.  As you gain more information, your choice may change, especially if you obtain the complete set of information relevant to the issue.


An example: You are playing a game with a horse race - only 2 horses participate in the race.  In the game, you want to place a bet on the race, and increase your credits dramatically.  The first time you play, you make a bet based on which horse you think will win.  Great.  Horse A wins.  Maybe you get some credits, maybe you don't.  The next time you play, Horse A wins again.  In fact, every single time you play, Horse A wins.  Once you've come to realise this, are you ever going to bet on Horse B again, knowing with 100% certainty that Horse A will always win?

[Someone With Mass]

The quarian admirals will get the research data regardless of the outcome (like, the second they set their feet on that ship), so it doesn't matter if you don't hand in the evidence.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Heh... maybe the Asari couple who can't leave the Citadel really are Geth agents.


Nah.

[Sisterofshane]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

It's all very well to talk about the theory of meta-gaming, but the simple truth is, if Balak does not return in ME3 (provided you saved the hostages and let him escape), then whenever I play ME1 again, I will always save the hostages - even though I regard it to be a foolish decision based on information available at the time, if I know that there will be no consequences to letting Balak get away, I'll always let him get away.

If there are no consequences to decisions, then there are effectively no decisions, other than making Shepard sound like a nice or a mean person.

This is where I disagree.  Just because there are no discernable consequences from taking the Paragon/Renegade stance over the other, doesn't mean that the choice is necessarily the "right" one.

Some people may just want to kill Balak anyways, even if he went on to be a reformed batarian in the end that never caused trouble again.  Others never intended to kill Balak in the first place, so letting him escape is not such a bad thing.  Depending on how you role play, the consequences may not always influence your decision.

That depends entirely on your stance on roleplaying in general.  Some people enjoy games where they have no ability to control the plot whatsoever, and every decision they make leads to the exact same result.  The only thing they do have control over, is their character's personality.  Whenever they make a 'decision', all they are actually deciding on is whether their character say something in a nice way, or a mean way.  Dragon Age 2 is a great example of a game that does this.  It sounds to me like this is satisfactory to you.

Other people, prefer their decisions to have actual consequences, and measure the roleplaying experience of the game through the differing impacts of their actions - without caring much for the character's way of saying things.

So, what I'm saying is, when I am making the Balak decision, I'm thinking about the consequences of killing him, versus letting him go.  I don't give a damn if my Shepard 'feels good' for killing him or saving the hostages.  If there are no consequences to letting him go, the decision is already made.  Consequences wise, you've saved 5 people at absolutely no cost whatsoever.

The fact that you are hung up on making the "right" choice may mean that you weren't very sure with your original decision to begin with.

That is not even remotely true.  As I explained above, I make my decisions based on consequences.  At the time of playing BDtS, given the information at the time, my decision is to kill Balak every single time, utterly regardless of whether I am playing paragon or renegade Shepard.  Once ME3 is out, I'll have more information (in fact, the complete set of information) on whether there are any consequences to letting him go or not.  If there are none, I'll never bother killing him again, because there is no point.  5 people die for nothing at all.

Please do not attempt to inform me of the certainty of my own choices.  Choices are based on information that you have at the time you make them.  As you gain more information, your choice may change, especially if you obtain the complete set of information relevant to the issue.


An example: You are playing a game with a horse race - only 2 horses participate in the race.  In the game, you want to place a bet on the race, and increase your credits dramatically.  The first time you play, you make a bet based on which horse you think will win.  Great.  Horse A wins.  Maybe you get some credits, maybe you don't.  The next time you play, Horse A wins again.  In fact, every single time you play, Horse A wins.  Once you've come to realise this, are you ever going to bet on Horse B again, knowing with 100% certainty that Horse A will always win?

Seems I struck a nerve... I didn't mean to offend you!

And if you must know, yes.  I do enjoy games that offer you absolutely no choice in regards to the story.  Games that give you a chance to build up a character from within that story, and make it meaningful and personal.  You want a game where you have COMPLETE control over character and universe?  Go play the Sims.  I personally enjoy a good story as much or more then "shaping" a world around a static sharacter.

And the reason why I suggested that you might be questioning yourself is because you seem to be basing the decision solely on the fact of whether there will be consequences or not.  Realisticly, not every desicion made in our lives will have discernable consequences.  Even when it seems to be a major desicion.  If it makes it a more enjoyable game for you to know the outcome, and play the game based upon the certainty of one, I have no beef with it.  For me, I would rather deal with the situation in the moment and deal with any consequences later, and have a character and story that makes SENSE to that character's personality, and is enjoyable to me, then have an inconsistent character just because I might get "punished"  for a decision later on.

That said, I have a really hard time changing decisions that I know have come back to bite me in the butt...But DAMN if it doesn't have me on the edge of my seat the first time it happens!

[Dave of Canada]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Heh... maybe the Asari couple who can't leave the Citadel really are Geth agents.

I don't see why anybody would ever side with them when you have this scene.

[Boiny Bunny]

Sisterofshane wrote...

And if you must know, yes.  I do enjoy games that offer you absolutely no choice in regards to the story.  Games that give you a chance to build up a character from within that story, and make it meaningful and personal.  You want a game where you have COMPLETE control over character and universe?  Go play the Sims.  I personally enjoy a good story as much or more then "shaping" a world around a static sharacter.

It seems to me that you might be playing the wrong games then (Mass Effect trilogy).  From the start, Mass Effect has been marketed for its choices and consequences following those choices.  I don't want complete control over the character and universe, that is an exaggeration to the point of ridiculousness - nor does the Sims even come close to offering that.  I quite simply, want my decisions to have consequences.  Some work out the way you thought they would, some don't.  Given that the entire marketing campaign for Mass Effect has been centred around consequences for choices, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

And the reason why I suggested that you might be questioning yourself is because you seem to be basing the decision solely on the fact of whether there will be consequences or not.  Realisticly, not every desicion made in our lives will have discernable consequences.  Even when it seems to be a major desicion.  If it makes it a more enjoyable game for you to know the outcome, and play the game based upon the certainty of one, I have no beef with it.  For me, I would rather deal with the situation in the moment and deal with any consequences later, and have a character and story that makes SENSE to that character's personality, and is enjoyable to me, then have an inconsistent character just because I might get "punished"  for a decision later on.

No, that's the exact problem with Mass Effect's paragon/renegade system in general.  It forces you to create a character that must be consistent within their chosen tone (nice or mean), and cannot choose logically for each decision, because they are stuck to their chosen tone.  This results in two types of characters, and nothing in between.  If I want to be a paragon in ME2, nearly every single decision I make in the entire game must be paragon, even if I disagree with them, because the game heavily penalises you for not sticking to your chosen tone.

A paragon who chooses to kill Balak however is not in any way, an inconsistent character.  It's a character who tries to do the right thing and save as many lives as possible, but when placed in a situation where millions of lives may be put at risk for saving 5, simply cannot take that risk.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...


No, that's the exact problem with Mass Effect's paragon/renegade system in general.  It forces you to create a character that must be consistent within their chosen tone (nice or mean), and cannot choose logically for each decision, because they are stuck to their chosen tone.  This results in two types of characters, and nothing in between.  If I want to be a paragon in ME2, nearly every single decision I make in the entire game must be paragon, even if I disagree with them, because the game heavily penalises you for not sticking to your chosen tone.

A paragon who chooses to kill Balak however is not in any way, an inconsistent character.  It's a character who tries to do the right thing and save as many lives as possible, but when placed in a situation where millions of lives may be put at risk for saving 5, simply cannot take that risk.

This^ so much. While I didn't mind how the P&R system worked in ME (ME2's system was broken IMO), I didn't like the fact that whatever i chose accordingly, was stuck there for the rest of the game. I persoanlly would rather have a system taht adjusts to my choices. KoTOR did this really well and reflected the mood I chose and even reflected my ending. DA:O did pretty good at this as well as noted with my companions and other NPCs and with the epilogue cards..

[JBONE27]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Here are some paragon decisions that I think may be harmful. (spoilerrific)
Not going after what's his name in Zeed's mission. (possible army raised against you)
Keeping the grey box in Kasumi's mission. (possible loss of allies, and Kasumi)
Re-programing the Geth in A House Divided. (possible tie up for quarians and geth)
Saving the Council. (possible stonewalling)
Warning the Batarians in Arrival. (possible emboldening of them against humanity)
Letting the Rachni queen live. (possible indoctrination)
Staying faithful to ME1 LI. (possibly moved on to James Vega causing heartbreak)
Giving Tali the information disk in ME1. (similar to re-programing the geth)
Telling Miranda to talk to her sister. (possible hostage situation)
Choosing to save Samara over Morinth. (possibly have more enemies)
Giving that Indian guy his wife's body. (possible loss of valuble intelligence)

You should serperate those a bit...and for the council one,they say your spectre status will make a difference.

I would like to see what happens if you cheat, I don't have any unfaithful games so I wont be able to see myself.

Done, and you can always replay it... If Shepard does cheat on the VS, I'm hopeing that Shep with be able to tell the VS off.  In particular if Shep cheated on VS with Tali (Male Shep on Ash), or Garrus (Fem Shep on Kaiden).

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I think I will, I want to see what Ash says when I cheat on her for Jack...

[Boiny Bunny]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I think I will, I want to see what Ash says when I cheat on her for Jack...

She'll probably slap you, run off, then completely and utterly forget it ever happened and continue to serve under you exactly as she was before.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I think I will, I want to see what Ash says when I cheat on her for Jack...

She'll probably slap you, run off, then completely and utterly forget it ever happened and continue to serve under you exactly as she was before.

yeah, thanks bunny.


Way to be a downer.

[Boiny Bunny]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I think I will, I want to see what Ash says when I cheat on her for Jack...

She'll probably slap you, run off, then completely and utterly forget it ever happened and continue to serve under you exactly as she was before.

yeah, thanks bunny.


Way to be a downer.

lol, sorry - what were you expecting?  A mud-wrestling duel between the two?