631 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

ThePwener wrote...

Alpha Protocol did things so right. Why couldn't ME have been more like that masterpiece?

Because AP had too many bugs to get it wide critical aclaim. I litterally could not play it for a year after I bought it on Steam.

[Rahmiel]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I think you've misunderstand my use of the word 'optimal'.  If I applied 'optimal' to ME2, it would mean, all squadmates and Shepard survive the suicide mission.

If I applied it to ME3, it would mean that as many species/planets/humans/squadmates are saved as is possible in the game.  I believe that 100% paragon or 100% renegade choices should not lead to this outcome - as both, are at times, illogical.

What I'm saying is, I want to see different consequences for different decisions, instead of just different tones of voice and slightly different conversations.  Killed the council in ME1?  Turians are much harder to convince to side with you in ME3.  Let Balak go in ME1?  He just came back and destroyed a major human military staging colony using a similar ploy, not only killing millions, but weakening the human military in ME3.  Those are the sorts of things I want to see - though not necessarily on that scale all the time.

I know what you mean, I've been itching to get a crack at Balak.  Thing is, how many renegades in here would complain that paragons get extra content?  I mean, BW can get around that by having another batarian terrorist do something, and claim some type of connection to balak (or maybe balak had rich parents that want revenge) I dunno.  But.. people complain about a lot of things.

You also have to be careful when you throw around the word optimal.  I get your meaning now, but optimal can reference many things.  Like trying to find the optimal path to work.  Is that time based, fuel usage, scenery, etc.  Perhaps in ME2 they made it too straightforward/streamlined.  I know BW is making more tough decisions though (like Virmire probably) so I won't worry too much.

I don't mind decisions coming back to bite me in the ass (keji's greybox, rachni queen, etc.) it just means that I'll have paragon resolutions to those decisions and more content  

[ThePwener]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

You mean talk the same way no matter you're Karma and be constantly followed by cowboys/mercs trying to kill you? No thanks. That system was underdeveloped and cheap.

No, where it doesn't matter if I'm Renegade or Paragon and can take on speech challenges regardless of my opinion.

Or, even better. Make the neutral responses worth a damn.

The only neutral response that I've seen which was actually better than the Paragon/Renegade responses was at the end of LotSB, with Liara in the cabin.

I see your point. But BW wants Me's system to be overcomplicated and difficult when it shouldn't be when it's a passsive mechanic. They are supposed to have done this before, but came out as amateurs in ME2.

[Someone With Mass]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Killing Wrex is not a renegade decision, to be clear.

If you have maxed out charm or intimidate, you can use paragon or renegade options to convince him to stand down. Or, if you found his family armour, he'll back down anyway.

Or you can kill him under any of the above scenarios, if you choose - but this option is not a renegade option.

While on that subject. Neither is killing the Council.

[Sundance31us]

ThePwener wrote...
In defense, it isn't common knowledge that the Rachni are out in the galaxy if you saved the Queen.

Unless you chose the following dialogue option…

LotSB - Hostage scene – Paragon dialogue choice:

"Is that it?…Vasir, I sacrificed hundreds of human lives to save the Destiny Ascension, I unleashed the Rachni on the galaxy so for your sake I hope your escape plan doesn't hinge on me hesitating to shoot a damn hostage."


(1.45)

[ThePwener]

SandTrout wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Alpha Protocol did things so right. Why couldn't ME have been more like that masterpiece?

Because AP had too many bugs to get it wide critical aclaim. I litterally could not play it for a year after I bought it on Steam.

Bugs? I saw no bugs.

[ThePwener]

Sundance31us wrote...

ThePwener wrote...
In defense, it isn't common knowledge that the Rachni are out in the galaxy if you saved the Queen.

Unless you chose the following dialogue option…

LotSB - Hostage scene – Paragon dialogue choice:

"Is that it?…Vasir, I sacrificed hundreds of human lives to save the Destiny Ascension, I unleashed the Rachni on the galaxy so for your sake I hope your escape plan doesn't hinge on me hesitating to shoot a damn hostage."


(1.45)

....then you kill her. And they didn't believe Shepard's claim on the Reapers, let alone some traumatized tourists and waiters on the Rachni.

[SandTrout]

ThePwener wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Alpha Protocol did things so right. Why couldn't ME have been more like that masterpiece?

Because AP had too many bugs to get it wide critical aclaim. I litterally could not play it for a year after I bought it on Steam.

Bugs? I saw no bugs.

Were you on console or PC?

[Someone With Mass]

ThePwener wrote...

....then you kill her. And they didn't believe Shepard's claim on the Reapers, let alone some traumatized tourists and waiters on the Rachni.

What, the Council? They're very well aware of your action there.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Killing Wrex is not a renegade decision, to be clear.

If you have maxed out charm or intimidate, you can use paragon or renegade options to convince him to stand down. Or, if you found his family armour, he'll back down anyway.

Or you can kill him under any of the above scenarios, if you choose - but this option is not a renegade option.

IIRC, you cannot kill him choosing an actual R or P selection. The only option on that side of the dialogue tree, if you have R & P as a choice, is the center one where you signal Ashley to shoot him. Or on the other side of the tree where you can choose to shoot him. Choosing and actual R or P selection has him stand down.

[Golden Owl]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a 'paragon' bashing thread, but rather a discussion of the possibility of either paragon or renegade decisions backfiring.

Also, this thread assumes that Bioware will fix ME2's utterly broken mess of a Paragon/Renegade system, so that you are able to pick paragon or renegade for every decision in the game, regardless of which decisions you have made to date.

What do you think?

I believe it means a number of both paragon and renegade choices from all three games are going to back fire on us in ME3. ...I'm not guessing numbers or which scenerios.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 24 août 2011 - 02:04 .

[TheOptimist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

It's entirely possible to create cameos and references without the characters you've killed showing up. If I've killed somebody's entire family, the universe isn't going to forget what I've done.

Killed the Rachni Queen? Meet a scientist who was on Noveria!

To what purpose, the only reason you meet the Rachni Queen is so she can let you know she's okay.  Is there anyone on Noveria Renegade Shepard gives a **** about besides possibly Parasini? Didn't think so.

Killed Shiala? Meet Liz instead of nameless colonist 3423.

Liz wasn't infected, and thus may not know about the medical scans.  They might have tried for someone else from the colony, but keeping track of exactly which ones were killed was probably difficult.  It's not like Ren Shep cared about them.

Killed Fist? Have people mention it on the Citadel.

Uh, why? He's dead and others have replaced him.

Killed the Council? Have the new Council show up.

They're probably afraid you'll kill them too.

Here's a very obvious example which is clearly not a "feature".

Explain to me the Collector Base.

Companion: "It's logical to keep the Base."
*later*
Companion: "You're an idiot for keeping the base, why did you listen to me?"

That's probably because they now have time to remember Cerberus' less than stellar record when it comes to research and development. And be specific, who does this?

Renegade is sacrificing everything to achieve mission completion, Paragon is willing to put the mission on the backburner to fill their morality. The problem with the system, Paragon always achieves the mission and gets out with their morality intact.

Why do you sacrifice people who aren't necessary to sacrifice when you can do the exact same thing the Renegade does and kept your precious morality intact?

I don't know, why do you?  I'd say people do it because they choose to do it, because their character thinks those sacrifices OUGHT to be necessary, and so for that character, they are.  For those of us who don't think that way, other options are available. 

You can, assuming you ignore some Renegade choices and do other ones instead. Feel free to screw over your friends as a Paragon and you can charm your loyalty out of them, such as Zaeed. Try to do the same for the Renegade when presented with similar choices? You're out of luck, sorry.

Oh poor you, you didn't make the right Renegade decision. Face it, you can succeed by being a complete bastard in every single mission.  The fact that you chose to fail even with that option is on YOU, not the Paragon player.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I like how para shep saves the people and looses Vido in Zaeeds mission that was a neat turn but on the flip side ren shep burns those people and gets Vido. Obviously para gave up someone to save people and well ren if they're happy with the ends justify the means then they sleep pretty well at night I'm sure killing all those guys for vido was worth it to them.

I wouldn't want every decision para make to be its bad but some realistic ones should be depending on our actions I suppose leading up to it. I can see if Legion was lying about being a good geth then rewriting those real good geth into heretics would be bad.

Ren choices should also turn up bad because their sure lack of caring or big picture thinking should do things to screw them over as well for instance keeping the base should turn up bad we know reaper tech in human hands never works out it should do something big to under mind a ren playthrough.

Both para and rens should have different events that the player may've seen as the right choice that turns up ugly and doing the opposite of what they thought it would for some choices.

[Someone With Mass]

TheOptimist wrote...

Oh poor you, you didn't make the right Renegade decision. Face it, you can succeed by being a complete bastard in every single mission.  The fact that you chose to fail even with that option is on YOU, not the Paragon player.

The same can be said about every mission you can lose the loyalty of a teammember on. It's your own fault.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 août 2011 - 02:07 .

[Gatt9]

I sincerely doubt that it'll actually happen. All the decisions in ME2 amounted to either emails, brief cameos that didn't matter at all, or background chatter "The humans are taking over!". None of them actually did anything.

My personal favorite was the email from the doctor in the citadel you had to save several times in ME. I went back to the citadel after getting it with Garrus as she requested, never saw her.

So I'm honestly not expecting any reprocussions, or anything major.

[Rahmiel]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Renegade is sacrificing everything to achieve mission completion, Paragon is willing to put the mission on the backburner to fill their morality. The problem with the system, Paragon always achieves the mission and gets out with their morality intact.

Incorrect.  In Zaeed's loyalty mission, if Shepard chooses the paragon option of saving the workers in the refinery, then Santiago gets away.  The mission is basically failed.  So no achieve + paragon there.  Same thing in ME1, with bringing down the sky dlc.. balak or the colonists.  You save the colony either way, but balak gets away or he does not (at the cost of lives).  I wouldn't call either a "Paragon always achieves the mission and gets out with their morality intact".

Is there a mission where a renegade achieves the mission and does not get out with their morality intact?

[Thompson family]

At the risk of sounding deliberately provocative ....

When was a Renegade decision, even without hindsight, ever clearly the realistic choice?

EDIT: I'll make this a seperate thread rather than detrail this thread.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 août 2011 - 02:17 .

[Sharn01]

Thompson family wrote...

At the risk of sounding deliberately provocative ....

When was a Renegade decision, even without hindsight, ever clearly the realistic choice?

I cant think of a decision in either game where the most logical choice was one of the options given to choose from.

Modifié par Sharn01, 24 août 2011 - 02:18 .

[slimgrin]

Here's an instance where I suspect the fans are discussing this more than the writers did.

[Abirn]

Thompson family wrote...

At the risk of sounding deliberately provocative ....

When was a Renegade decision, even without hindsight, ever clearly the realistic choice?

EDIT: I'll make this a seperate thread rather than detrail this thread.

Keeping the collector base was clearly the logical choice.  Yet it was the "renegade" choice.  

Modifié par Abirn, 24 août 2011 - 02:29 .

[TheOptimist]

Seboist wrote...
Yeah, wanting the renegade import to be different from the non-import default is "wanting to have my cake and eat it". Riiiiiiight.

So now you're angry that Bioware made Ren Sheps choices the default. Great.   

[TheOptimist]

Abirn wrote...

Keeping the reaper base was clearly the logical choice.  Yet it was the "renegade" choice.  

Yes, after all, Cerberus' track record with dangerous research projects is so stellar. There's no way you could logically infer it will backfire horribly.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 02:32 .

[AClockworkMelon]

All of this could be fixed by shuffling all the options so players don't know what's blue and red based on its color or position and they're forced to actually *gasp* read and decide what they think is good or bad. Really, there shouldn't be a morality system at all.

[Abirn]

TheOptimist wrote...

Abirn wrote...

Keeping the reaper base was clearly the logical choice.  Yet it was the "renegade" choice.  

Yes, after all, Cerberus' track record with dangerous research projects is so stellar. There's no way you could logically infer it will backfire horribly.

Huge god like machines are coming to exterminate all organic life in the univierse.  And we have a piece of technology that can be studied to learn about them and help in our defense.  Cerberus's intentions be dammed, if you are fighting against extinction you pull out all the stops. 

[sedrikhcain]

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.

In my experience, when there are blue or red options, they generally BOTH provide a means to a favorable outcome that otherwise would be unavailable. There are also plenty of times when non-red paragon actions offer you ways to resolve things. Just as there are paragon options that make you work harder to satisfy your more "positive" morality.

As far as whether some of the "nice guy" choices go, like not killing the rachni queen and destroying the collector base, I think we need to wait until we see what happens in ME3 before we evaluate that.

It seems like people have some intense desire to see being a nice guy blow up in people's faces. Well, the options are paragon/renegade but they're all towards the same objective, so I think that's unrealistic.