631 réponses à ce sujet

[Rahmiel]

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

That's assuming that a paragon or renegade decision is foolish.  What if none of the paragon or renegade decisions are foolish?  I don't consider any of them to be foolish at all.

[Boiny Bunny]

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not...

A good deal of renegade choices result in an immediate punishment, with the idea of preventing a future evil.

Examples:

1) Kill Balak.  Punishment = 5 hostages die.
2) Kill Rachni Queen.  Punishment = Rachni species becomes extinct.
3) Kill Zhu's Hope Colonists.  Punishment = Colonists are murdered.

I don't believe that most people playing (I won't say all) are genuinely pyschopathic murderers who would take pleasure in doing something like killing the colonists at Zhu's Hope.  They do something that is painful to do, to guarantee that the infection does not spread further.  Similar with the Rachni Queen.  Nobody wants to be responsible for making a sentient species extinct - so you do something which might be considered 'evil', with the idea of preventing a potential war down the track with millions of casualties.

As as said above, most renegade decisions involve an immediate punishment, to prevent a future risk.

Most paragon choices avoid the immediate punishment, but take on the future risk.

But the future risk, as of yet, has not materialised into anything.  Thus the complaints.

However, that is not really the focus of this topic.

This topic is about both paragon and renegade decisions backfiring.

[Boiny Bunny]

Memmahkth wrote...

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

That's assuming that a paragon or renegade decision is foolish.  What if none of the paragon or renegade decisions are foolish?  I don't consider any of them to be foolish at all.

Well, that's a matter of perspective I guess.  I consider multiple decisions that you make in the game to be foolish.  Letting Balak go is in my books, a prime example, of a foolish decision.

To add to what I said before (which you quoted above), foolish and non-foolish decisions alike should have consequences.

Saved the collector base?  Perhaps it causes a bucketload of trouble for you in ME3 because a bunch of Cerberus scientists working there became indoctrinated.  However, you get some extra firepower in the final battle as a result of their research.

If you destroy it, you miss out on the trouble, and the extra firepower.

[Rahmiel]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...

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

That's assuming that a paragon or renegade decision is foolish.  What if none of the paragon or renegade decisions are foolish?  I don't consider any of them to be foolish at all.

Well, that's a matter of perspective I guess.  I consider multiple decisions that you make in the game to be foolish.  Letting Balak go is in my books, a prime example, of a foolish decision.

To add to what I said before (which you quoted above), foolish and non-foolish decisions alike should have consequences.

Saved the collector base?  Perhaps it causes a bucketload of trouble for you in ME3 because a bunch of Cerberus scientists working there became indoctrinated.  However, you get some extra firepower in the final battle as a result of their research.

If you destroy it, you miss out on the trouble, and the extra firepower.

The "what if" game is not fun to play.  For those paragons that let balak go, what if the scientists there came up with an idea for a weapon to kill a reaper.  Also, what if balak turns out to be significant in destroying the reapers as well, before he decides he's going to eliminate Earth.  Or maybe he'll wait for Earth to be eliminated first, so Shepard fights him to get his plans/tactics/tech.

I dunno.. it's not fun to play "what if".  There are many directions BW can go in "this was your decision, this happens."  But not all have to diverge radically or have punishing consequences.  I liked the decisions and the results from ME1.  We still have to see those play out though, so maybe I won't like the results.

I just don't think either path should be punished and neither should staying neutral (which I will agree, ME2 did a lousy job of offering a part).  I am curious though.. is there a difference in ME1, if you choose to kill the council, or focus the fleet's firepower on Sovereign?  The result is the same, but the intent is different.  I'm curious if BW only considers the result, or also considers the intent.

[Massadonious1]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
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? 

Well, most likely, and I certainly don't have any problem with sacrifice or making tough/important decisions.

I guess my issue is that I don't want the game, or anyone else dictating which choices are the "correct" ones. Like, the game will accept the outcome of a choice, but because of "entitlement" from either side, (I'm not going to discriminate here) the opposite choice was clearly intended to be the ideal one, for any number of reasons.

People can argue until the cows come home to whether that has already happened or not, but regardless, I certainly don't want to dole out any "punishment" for ANY choice, as some people have already or may suggest.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 24 août 2011 - 07:11 .

[Zarathiel]

TheOptimist 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.

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.

The important part is what Grunt says after the suicide mission. Whether you keep or blow it up, it's completely different from what he said inside the base. Handing the base over to Cereberus was weak, if you kept it. When you blow it up, he applauds your decision, after endorsing the option to keep it. He's the worst of the 4 imo.

Mordin argues for keeping the base when you're about to blow it up, saying information about Reapers would be useful.and then later says "Handing base over to Cerberus risky. More than risky, dangeious. Hope you know what you're doing."

Garrus doesn't say he hopes they don't f*** it up. He says he hopes they don't do something "worse than what the Collectors were planning. Watch yourself Shepard." I just went and talked to him for a game where I kept the base, this is the exact quote. That's a big difference.

As for Legion, he gave his opinion of using other technology to advance one's own culture. But he also boarded a derelict Reaper to get technology necessary to access the data core Sovereign gave the heretics in order to protect the geth. There's no option in game to ask him how that's different from using the Collector Base to potentially stop the Reapers.

Modifié par Zarathiel, 24 août 2011 - 07:03 .

[Drone223]

Both Paragon and Renagade choices will not 100% work since they both depend on blind faith

Save the rachni: Save it you may have more rachni hask to add to the Cerberus ones (imo)
Kill the rachni: you loss a potenially powerfull ally

Destory CB: You don't gain anything against the Repears
Save CB: Recover team indoctrinated before anything useful if found, Cerbeurs will try and gain galactic dominiation in a weakend galaxy once Repears are defeatted 

[TheOptimist]

[quote]Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not...[/quote]
Perfectly serious.

[quote]A good deal of renegade choices result in an immediate punishment, with the idea of preventing a future evil.

Examples:

1) Kill Balak.  Punishment = 5 hostages die.[/quote]

And? It's 5 people vs. potential billions.  I can't count the number of times I've seen someone say this.  This is not a punishment.  This is your choice.  Punishment would be failing the mission etc. because you chose to sacrifice the hostages.

[quote]2) Kill Rachni Queen.  Punishment = Rachni species becomes extinct.[/quote]

Again, justified I don't know how many times as killing a dangerously unknown species.  Your immediate choice does not qualify as being punished.

[quote]3) Kill Zhu's Hope Colonists.  Punishment = Colonists are murdered.[/quote]

It's not murder, they attacked you.  You are given the CHOICE of whether to attempt to subdue them or kill them since they're infected by an unknown pathogen with potentially horrifying implications.

[quote]I don't believe that most people playing (I won't say all) are genuinely pyschopathic murderers who would take pleasure in doing something like killing the colonists at Zhu's Hope.  They do something that is painful to do, to guarantee that the infection does not spread further.  Similar with the Rachni Queen.  Nobody wants to be responsible for making a sentient species extinct - so you do something which might be considered 'evil', with the idea of preventing a potential war down the track with millions of casualties.[/quote]

Wait, so you're claiming the 'punishment' is that YOU PERSONALLY feel bad about making a Renegade decision?  That's not punishment, you made a choice.  There are NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES to that choice in the game.[/quote] 

[quote]As as said above, most renegade decisions involve an immediate punishment, to prevent a future risk.

Most paragon choices avoid the immediate punishment, but take on the future risk.

But the future risk, as of yet, has not materialised into anything.  Thus the complaints.
[/quote]

What you want is for Paragons to be suffer negative concequences in game so they'll feel bad too, despite the fact that you KNOWINGLY chose an option you knew would cause you angst. 

Furthermore, that's a complete mischaracterization of Paragon choices.  You choose Paragon if you think your Shep can handle making their own life harder to help others.  Such as on Zhu's Hope, where you decide you think you can take down the colonists without killing them, essentially giving up on firing your weapon in favor of depending on your grenades and your armor. Such as the Council, where you're pretty sure you can take Sovereign anyway.  Such as the Rachni, where you make a split second choice on whether a species might deserve a second chance. And so far it's worked out, every time.  Just like the Renegade options.

[quote]However, that is not really the focus of this topic.

This topic is about both paragon and renegade decisions backfiring.[/quote]

Sorry, but I read the OP before you edited it, and even if that's not what you intended, it's certainly what's been claimed more than once in this topic.

[TheOptimist]

Zarathiel wrote...

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.

The important part is what Grunt says after the suicide mission. Whether you keep or blow it up, it's completely different from what he said inside the base. Handing the base over to Cereberus was weak, if you kept it. When you blow it up, he applauds your decision, after endorsing the option to keep it. He's the worst of the 4 imo.

Mordin argues for keeping the base when you're about to blow it up, saying information about Reapers would be useful.and then later says "Handing base over to Cerberus risky. More than risky, dangeious. Hope you know what you're doing."

Garrus doesn't say he hopes they don't f*** it up. He says he hopes they don't do something "worse than what the Collectors were planning. Watch yourself Shepard." I just went and talked to him for a game where I kept the base, this is the exact quote. That's a big difference.

As for Legion, he gave his opinion of using other technology to advance one's own culture. But he also boarded a derelict Reaper to get technology necessary to access the data core Sovereign gave the heretics in order to protect the geth. There's no option in game to ask him how that's different from using the Collector Base to potentially stop the Reapers.

Fine, Grunt I'll give you, that doesn't make any sense.  Again, given Cerberus' past history with dangerous research, (Akuze, Subject Zero, Chasca, Depot Sigma, Overlord, Derelict Reaper) Mordin and Garrus are perfectly justified in being worried about the risks in handing the thing over to Cerberus, that doesn't mean they're criticizing you or that they changed their thinking on it.

And incidentally, I don't see a big difference between 'hope they don't **** up', and 'hope they don't do something worse than the Collectors'. 

[Rahmiel]

I disagree with your perspective on these.

Boiny Bunny wrote...

A good deal of renegade choices result in an immediate punishment, with the idea of preventing a future evil.

Examples:

1) Kill Balak.  Punishment = 5 hostages die.

I don't really see this as punishment.. you're told, save the hostages, or attack balak.  As a flip side.. paragons are punished because balak gets away.

2) Kill Rachni Queen.  Punishment = Rachni species becomes extinct.

I don't see this as punishment either, considering that's the choice to be made.  The egg was found floating in an ancient ship.  Who's to say there aren't more floating around?  I view this more as not having the rachni as an ally, as opposed to extinction.. but still.. doesn't seem like punishment to me.

3) Kill Zhu's Hope Colonists.  Punishment = Colonists are murdered.

This is not punishment because of the reasoning behind the renegade decision to kill them in the first place!  They're not colonists, they're mindless thralls of the thorian.  To the renegade, they're irreversible and already casualties.  It's like killing husks.

I can see how you might think there is punishment, but these examples I just don't see as punishing, but rather the renegade taking the path of least resistance, whereas the paragon will take the path of least disturbance.

If this thread is about paragon and renegade decision backfiring.. let's ask a more refined question.

Should paragon and renegade decisions to the same event backfire, or should paragon and renegade decisions backfire to different events.

Let's take the Rachni queen and Zhu's Hope as examples.
Paragon releases Rachni queen, in ME3 the decision backfires and the rachni start up a war (during or post reaper invasion, doesn't really matter)
Renegade kills Rachni queen, in ME3 the decision backfires as you do not have the support of a rachni fleet and the Reapers succeed in destroying multiple worlds, including Earth.

So here, we have the same event (the Rachni Queen) and both decisions backfiring, or.. should we have the situation above where the paragon answer backfires and the zhu's hope renegade backfire.  Here the renegade kills off the colony, and no technological advancements come from that colony to help in the war against the Reapers.

[Ieldra]

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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

[Boiny Bunny]

Memmahkth wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...

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

That's assuming that a paragon or renegade decision is foolish.  What if none of the paragon or renegade decisions are foolish?  I don't consider any of them to be foolish at all.

Well, that's a matter of perspective I guess.  I consider multiple decisions that you make in the game to be foolish.  Letting Balak go is in my books, a prime example, of a foolish decision.

To add to what I said before (which you quoted above), foolish and non-foolish decisions alike should have consequences.

Saved the collector base?  Perhaps it causes a bucketload of trouble for you in ME3 because a bunch of Cerberus scientists working there became indoctrinated.  However, you get some extra firepower in the final battle as a result of their research.

If you destroy it, you miss out on the trouble, and the extra firepower.

The "what if" game is not fun to play.  For those paragons that let balak go, what if the scientists there came up with an idea for a weapon to kill a reaper.  Also, what if balak turns out to be significant in destroying the reapers as well, before he decides he's going to eliminate Earth.  Or maybe he'll wait for Earth to be eliminated first, so Shepard fights him to get his plans/tactics/tech.

I dunno.. it's not fun to play "what if".  There are many directions BW can go in "this was your decision, this happens."  But not all have to diverge radically or have punishing consequences.  I liked the decisions and the results from ME1.  We still have to see those play out though, so maybe I won't like the results.

I just don't think either path should be punished and neither should staying neutral (which I will agree, ME2 did a lousy job of offering a part).  I am curious though.. is there a difference in ME1, if you choose to kill the council, or focus the fleet's firepower on Sovereign?  The result is the same, but the intent is different.  I'm curious if BW only considers the result, or also considers the intent.

But nearly every decision that is made in real life, is based entirely on 'what if'.  Every business in the world, every government and leader in the world, every decision they ever make, is based on the advanced appraisal of a collection of 'what if' scenarios.  Every decision you make as a person, involves a variety of instantaneous (even sub-conscious) assessments of 'what ifs'.  Do I want to have another beer, or will that be one too many?  Should I walk to the shopping center today, or will it rain?  Should I overtake him now, or wait until there is a more straight road with a better line of sight?

How do we make any sense of such 'what if's?

Decisions are made based on what will result in the best outcome, adjusted for risk.

For example, should you bet $2 billion on a horse that has 4 broken legs, to win a race against the fastest and fittest horse in the world, of 2km?  Should we just ignore all concepts of probability, and just say 'what if' the horse with 4 broken legs magically somehow wins?  Yeah, let's go with the horse with 4 broken legs, and completely ignore all other facts and probabilites.

The Balak decision is presented to you as, very simply:

* Save 5 innocents and let the terrorist go
* Let the 5 innocents die, and kill the terrorist

Of the following, what is more likely?

* One of the completely random hostages, who are nothing more than asteroid miners, turns out to be the single most pivotal person other than Shepard in the entire galaxy and invents a super reaper killing weapon

OR

* Balak strikes another human colony at another point in the future

What are the probabilities of either of these eventuating?  The first, perhaps 1 in 1 trillion?  The second, probably somewhere around say 0.5.

I think that certain decisions should certainly be punished, just as they would in real life.  It has nothing to do with the individual decisions being paragon or renegade - but rather, whether they are rational or not.  This is of particular importance in the middle of a war.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Ieldra2 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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

What about the people (who will not be named but you know who you are.) who are absolutely certain the renegade decision is right no matter what?

[TheOptimist]

Ieldra2 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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

I guess you're free to think that if you want, but that's not what the quote says.  'Feels right' is completely open to interpretation.

[Rahmiel]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Of the following, what is more likely?

* One of the completely random hostages, who are nothing more than asteroid miners, turns out to be the single most pivotal person other than Shepard in the entire galaxy and invents a super reaper killing weapon

OR

* Balak strikes another human colony at another point in the future

What are the probabilities of either of these eventuating?  The first, perhaps 1 in 1 trillion?  The second, probably somewhere around say 0.5.

Is that 0.5% or 1/2.  If it's 0.5%, then that's incredibly small and not saving the hostages is a bad decision, if you're saying 50% that's ridiculously large.  I definitely don't think it's 50%.  We'd have to know a lot more about the universe to make even remotely accurate guesses about the chances of a terrorist after being thwarted, of attacking again.

I can say though.. what's more likely to happen in this situation.. You save the hostages, balak gets away and he

Attacks a colony destroying it

OR

Shepard kills him and once again, saves another colony from a batarian attack.

[Lotion Soronarr]

shep82 wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...
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.

The "morality" system is stupid and broken. I would like nothing more than to see it gone forever.

[Ieldra]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ieldra2 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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

What about the people (who will not be named but you know who you are.) who are absolutely certain the renegade decision is right no matter what?

Are you talking about those who are intuitively convinced, not just rationally, that a specific Renegade decision is the right one? I guess they exist, but IMO they're a small minority. Take the Collector base: there are those pro-Cerberus people here who don't appear to care about Cerberus's history and completely support everything they do. But most of the Base keepers are not of that kind - most acknowledge that giving the base to Cerberus is, in principle, undesirable, even while they think it must be done regardless. 

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

[Rahmiel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

Hurt how?  If you feel bad with the decision you made, then choose another.  If you're confident your renegade choice was the best choice, then how does it hurt?  I don't follow.  How are you being hurt by making a renegade decision if that's your choice?

[Seboist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ieldra2 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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

What about the people (who will not be named but you know who you are.) who are absolutely certain the renegade decision is right no matter what?

Are you talking about those who are intuitively convinced, not just rationally, that a specific Renegade decision is the right one? I guess they exist, but IMO they're a small minority. Take the Collector base: there are those pro-Cerberus people here who don't appear to care about Cerberus's history and completely support everything they do. But most of the Base keepers are not of that kind - most acknowledge that giving the base to Cerberus is, in principle, undesirable, even while they think it must be done regardless.

True, my ambivalent to Cerberus canon Shepard kept the base because she thought it was vital to stopping the Reapers not out of any loyalty to them.

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

Yep, Renegade decisions have us questioning "Was it worth it?". Paragon decisions? not so much...

[TheOptimist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

I get that part just fine.  But they're self inflicted wounds.  There are no gameplay consequences for renegade actions.  Any punishment you take is in your own head. Why you insist that Paragons take gameplay consequences when Renegades take none is beyond me.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

lol,Seboist and his misunderstanding of what ambivalence is...good times.

[Seboist]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

lol,Seboist and his misunderstanding of what ambivalence is...good times.

Yeah, my canon Shepard who kept the Rawlings data as leverage against Cerberus and took David out of Overlord and only sees them as a vital ally against the Reapers totally isn't ambivalent towards them.

[littlezack]

Seboist wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Ieldra2 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.

No, it's not. Paragon decisions are those that usually "feel right". There may be also good reasons to take any particular Paragon decision, but that's accidental. Paragon decisions are designed around what feels right . Renegade decisions, on the other hand, often feel uncomfortable even if you're absolutely convinced that they're the best option.

What about the people (who will not be named but you know who you are.) who are absolutely certain the renegade decision is right no matter what?

Are you talking about those who are intuitively convinced, not just rationally, that a specific Renegade decision is the right one? I guess they exist, but IMO they're a small minority. Take the Collector base: there are those pro-Cerberus people here who don't appear to care about Cerberus's history and completely support everything they do. But most of the Base keepers are not of that kind - most acknowledge that giving the base to Cerberus is, in principle, undesirable, even while they think it must be done regardless.

True, my ambivalent to Cerberus canon Shepard kept the base because she thought it was vital to stopping the Reapers not out of any loyalty to them.

Many Renegade decisions hurt. I think that's what most Paragons don't get.

Yep, Renegade decisions have us questioning "Was it worth it?". Paragon decisions? not so much...

On the flipside, I think a lot of Paragon options leave you to wonder if it was worth putting the galaxy at risk or leaving something to chance just for your own morality. Was it worth it, letting the Rachni Queen go? For all you know, she's just lying to you, and you could be starting up a future war. Was it worth it, saving the Council? They're gratefuly now, but how long until they start using humans as sacrificial pawns again? Was it worth it, letting Mordin keep Maelon's work on the genophage? If he's successful, the trouble with the Krogan Rebellion could happen all over again. So forth and so on.

A lot of Paragon decisions basically ask you to trust people and take them at their word that they won't come back to bite you in the future.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

lol,Seboist and his misunderstanding of what ambivalence is...good times.

Yeah, my canon Shepard who kept the Rawlings data as leverage against Cerberus and took David out of Overlord and only sees them as a vital ally against the Reapers totally isn't ambivalent towards them.

Wasn't talking about just now,talking about earlierB)