631 réponses à ce sujet

[rapscallioness]

See, the whole Collector base issue has that weird definition of paragon and renegade, too.

(Disclaimer: yes, I Smited the base).

You would think that blowing up the base; defying your "boss"..cuz face it..in the most extreme way; saying devil be damned would be considered a renegade move. But somehow it's labelled as paragon. (I almost..almost felt sorry for TIM. I mean, I had the man disheveled!. Sucking on that cig for all it was worth. Cursing me out, I know! hahaha..)

They seem arbitrary for the most part.

[TheOptimist]

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

Alperez said the choice has to be more about Cerberus and less about the base itself,or you would have had more options.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 04:55 .

[Sharn01]

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

[Zu Long]

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

It's not clear. She claims they are familiar with indoctrination and are taking precautions, but she's already indoctrinated when she says that. However given that Admiral Hackett is the one who sent her there, and that he believes Shepard, it's hard not to think they knew about it going in and still got brainwashed.

[TheOptimist]

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

It's not clear.  On the shuttle trip over when you ask, she says they've taken precautions, but they sure aren't in evidence when you get there (Object Rho is sitting out in the open, unshielded. Not that it's mentioned if you even CAN shield from reaper mind bending rays.)

EDIT:Wow, I just totally got ninja'd on this top part.

I don't know, after having seen Sovereign corrupt Benezia, her assistants and to a lesser extent Saren, then seeing the effects later on the Reaper ship, plus some of the other indoctrination information we've gotten, there's just no way my Shep sees anything good coming of putting people on that station.  More likely, Harbinger gets free replacements for the Collectors Shep just went to a lot of trouble to get rid of. 

Modifié par TheOptimist, 24 août 2011 - 04:26 .

[Yakko77]

I'm slightly concerned about my choice to let the Rachni go in my paragon playthroughs. All my paragon playthroughs but one let Vido escape. I'm hopeful saving the DA will prove useful.

[Zarathiel]

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

She knew about the Reapers, and you could question her on how she avoided being indoctrinated on the shuttle ride to the Project base. She says she's aware of the threat, but that may have been a Reaper lying to you, since you get to the base and find out that absolutely no precautions to prevent indoctrination had been taken whatsoever.

Also,

TheOptimist wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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?

Legion, Mordin, Garrus, and Grunt.

[Zu Long]

Zarathiel wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

She knew about the Reapers, and you could question her on how she avoided being indoctrinated on the shuttle ride to the Project base. She says she's aware of the threat, but that may have been a Reaper lying to you, since you get to the base and find out that absolutely no precautions to prevent indoctrination had been taken whatsoever.

Also,

TheOptimist wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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?

Legion, Mordin, Garrus, and Grunt.

LOL. Never kept it so I wouldn't know. Does Garrus really yell at you for not blowing it up? He argues pretty hard that it's the right call.

[Zarathiel]

Zu Long wrote...

Zarathiel wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect,
the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to
blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the
reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires
and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah,
why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can
get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked
so well in Arrival.../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

I
still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to
learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the
many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will
most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late
to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt
to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to
begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I
dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time
and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where
the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an
accident?

She knew about the Reapers, and you
could question her on how she avoided being indoctrinated on the shuttle
ride to the Project base. She says she's aware of the threat, but that
may have been a Reaper lying to you, since you get to the base and find
out that absolutely no precautions to prevent indoctrination had been
taken whatsoever.

Also,

TheOptimist wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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?

Legion, Mordin, Garrus, and Grunt.

LOL.
Never kept it so I wouldn't know. Does Garrus really yell at you for
not blowing it up? He argues pretty hard that it's the right call.

Yeah, he doesn't berate you for it, but he does question the decision when he previously endorsed it.
Edit: quoting fail, fixed now.

Modifié par Zarathiel, 24 août 2011 - 04:36 .

[Sisterofshane]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I forget who it was ( I beleive it was SOS) who said the choice has to be more about Cerberus and less about the base itself,or you would have had more options.

I don't really remember who said it first (wasn't me), but I agree with whomever did say it that they whole choice was set up to be about Cerberus, not the base.  Otherwise, wouldn't there be a neutral option of allowing someone else to study it?  And (considering the Devs do things like this all the time), if the base was so important to the storyline, why give us the option to destroy it at all?  (Remember, they are not in the mindset to "punish players")

[KevShep]

Sisterofshane wrote...

I don't really remember who said it first (wasn't me), but I agree with whomever did say it that they whole choice was set up to be about Cerberus, not the base.  Otherwise, wouldn't there be a neutral option of allowing someone else to study it?  And (considering the Devs do things like this all the time), if the base was so important to the storyline, why give us the option to destroy it at all?  (Remember, they are not in the mindset to "punish players")

I agree with this..... In ME1 we were givin 3 choices Paragon/Renegade/Paragade. In ME2 we have only 2 Paragon/Renegade.

Modifié par KevShep, 24 août 2011 - 04:39 .

[Massadonious1]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Unless they outright state they are punishing Paragons, I'm going to doubt it.

If I knew beforehand that a(ny) playstyle/alignment choice was going to get "punished", I'm not sure I would bother.

"Oh, you didn't save the base? Well, everyone dies. Sorry. /trollface."

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I forget who it was ( I beleive it was SOS) who said the choice has to be more about Cerberus and less about the base itself,or you would have had more options.

I don't really remember who said it first (wasn't me), but I agree with whomever did say it that they whole choice was set up to be about Cerberus, not the base.  Otherwise, wouldn't there be a neutral option of allowing someone else to study it?  And (considering the Devs do things like this all the time), if the base was so important to the storyline, why give us the option to destroy it at all?  (Remember, they are not in the mindset to "punish players")

It was Alperez in DoD,just rememebered,but it does make a great bit of sense.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 05:01 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

No one else thinks it's a little funny that some want to avoid the Indoctrination issue when THE REAPERS WILL BE BRINIGNG IT WHEN THEY ARRIVE?

[TheOptimist]

Zarathiel wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Incorrect, the logical choice is once again not an option here, you can choose to blow up a base that could possibly provide tech to help against the reapers, or give it to a psycopath.  Clearly disregarding TIM's desires and giving the base to someone else would never cross anyones mind.

Yeah, why let a bunch of Cerberus scientists get indoctrinated when you can get a bunch of Alliance scientists indoctrinated instead?  That worked so well in Arrival.

I still believe indoctrination is something that realistically we need to learn more about so we can develope counter measures.  Thats one of the many reasons I feel anything useful that comes out of the base will most likely come after years of study, which could possibly be to late to help against the reapers.  Still, it doesnt hurt to make the attempt to learn, and going in with forknowledge as to what indoctrination is to begin with, if the base is even capable of that, would go a long way.

I dont recall all of arrival since I only played through it the one time and thought it was not as good as the other DLC prior to it, but where the scientists aware of indoctrination and Reapers, or was it an accident?

She knew about the Reapers, and you could question her on how she avoided being indoctrinated on the shuttle ride to the Project base. She says she's aware of the threat, but that may have been a Reaper lying to you, since you get to the base and find out that absolutely no precautions to prevent indoctrination had been taken whatsoever.

Also,

TheOptimist wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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?

Legion, Mordin, Garrus, and Grunt.

If memory serves, Legion makes an observation that keeping the base might help in the future, but he doesn't say he thinks you should keep it, he's just trying to give you information.  He practically told you his opinion earlier when he said the Geth did not want Reaper tech, they'd make their own future.

Garrus says he hopes Cerberus knows what to do...and hopes they don't **** it up.

Grunt says when your enemy hands you a weapon, you use it.

I don't honestly remember what Mordin says, but of the first three, only Legion even halfway qualifies.

[Boiny Bunny]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Unless they outright state they are punishing Paragons, I'm going to doubt it.

If I knew beforehand that a(ny) playstyle/alignment choice was going to get "punished", I'm not sure I would bother.

"Oh, you didn't save the base? Well, everyone dies. Sorry. /trollface."

That's not what this thread is about. 

It's about having consequences for foolish decisions, be them paragon or renegade - not ending the game prematurely from 1 decision.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 24 août 2011 - 05:16 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

If the trend continues, the Paragon choices will grant the best results every single time... with no true upside to any other choice by comparison (plot-wise).

[TheOptimist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If the trend continues, the Paragon choices will grant the best results every single time... with no true upside to any other choice by comparison (plot-wise).

What trend?  You can get the best results plotwise through Renegade actions.  There have been no real consequences to Renegade choices.

[Massadonious1]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Unless they outright state they are punishing Paragons, I'm going to doubt it.

If I knew beforehand that a(ny) playstyle/alignment choice was going to get "punished", I'm not sure I would bother.

"Oh, you didn't save the base? Well, everyone dies. Sorry. /trollface."

That's not what this thread is about. 

It's about having consequences for foolish decisions, be them paragon or renegade - not ending the game prematurely from 1 decision.

Well, I know that's what you want, but that's not what Dave apparently wants.

And I wasn't necessairly referring to a decision ending up in a game over screen, but more of a less than satisfactory ending because I didn't make the "correct" choice or choices.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 24 août 2011 - 06:22 .

[littlezack]

TheOptimist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If the trend continues, the Paragon choices will grant the best results every single time... with no true upside to any other choice by comparison (plot-wise).

What trend?  You can get the best results plotwise through Renegade actions.  There have been no real consequences to Renegade choices.

A lot of people like to think they know how it all ends up in ME3.

I'm trying to think of anything flat out BAD that happens to Shepard for being a Renegade...aside from certain characters just not liking you for being a dick, nothing much comes to mind.

[Boiny Bunny]

But isn't that the very crux of what ME3 is supposed to be all about? In fact, what the entire ME trilogy is all about? Make a decision, it will be hard, and consequences will follow either way. Do you send the reinforcements to save a colony, or pursue a weapon to fight the reapers? One is paragon, one is renegade. Either could backfire in your face - and as a result, impact the number of humans on Earth you manage to save in the end.

ME3 is the game where all your decisions from the previous 2 games are supposed to bear fruit, so if you made decisions that weren't tactically smart in the heat of the moment (like, in my opinion, letting Balak get away), prepare for some kind of fallout as a result.

ME is about playing the way you want to play, AND having to deal with the consequences of playing that way. It's not so much, play a completely linear story where you have no choice ever in the entire game because all choices have the same outcome, but hey, you can choose whether you are a nice guy or an ass whilst wading through that linearity.

[heyimacrab]

shep82 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Looks like BW finally found the right way to do it. Glad to see that the blind Paragon zealots will get what's coming to them.

To be fair, I hope the blind Renegade maniacs get what's coming to them, too.

To be fair I've never seen a paragon zealot,seen a few renegades though.

I make all my choices out to be paragon.  I mean, whether or not you choose renegade or paragon, you get bonuses or additional text for making paragon/renegade choices.  So.. why not keep making them to make sure you have the right tally of p/r point total to use in conversations.

I'm not against BW from making a game where you have to navigate through text and make decisions.  But so far in the Mass Effect series, you're rewarded for making p/r decisions, and infact the bonuses you get help you to make further ones.

I guess my point is.. why would BW change this now, going into the third game.  I'm not against it in another game series or game.. but really, in ME3 you want to start punishing players from gaining paragon/renegade points?  Meaning to make the "right decision" I have to have chosen a dialogue path I do not necessarily agree with, to gain points, to open up a conversation option in a discussion.  Otherwise, I'm stuck with the "feels right" decision?

I dunno..

You shouldn't have to make a decision that you disagree with to open up further conversation options - ME2 is exceptionally broken in this regard.

But, you shouldn't be able to get the 'most optimal ending' by just being 100% paragon, or 100% renegade, in my opinion.

I disagree. It gives you different ways to do things each having it's own consequence I think they've done a fine job with the morality system.

i agree with ^^
i often have to force myself to make certain deciscions because i dont want to lose my paragon stats

[TheOptimist]

littlezack wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If the trend continues, the Paragon choices will grant the best results every single time... with no true upside to any other choice by comparison (plot-wise).

What trend?  You can get the best results plotwise through Renegade actions.  There have been no real consequences to Renegade choices.

A lot of people like to think they know how it all ends up in ME3.

I'm trying to think of anything flat out BAD that happens to Shepard for being a Renegade...aside from certain characters just not liking you for being a dick, nothing much comes to mind.

That's the thing. Nothing bad has happened to them, but you can read page after page of them claiming they've been given the shaft because nothing truly bad has happened to the paragon either.