951 réponses à ce sujet

[Rahmiel]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...

wait wait wait.. realistic renegade decisions includes shooting kolyat's hostage?! So you're saying that in real life, hostages get shot by the authorities all the time.. or just that there are no renegade hostage negotiators in real life?

No what they are saying is trying to save all parties involved isn't realistic.

He says fastest and simplest.  Nothing about making an attempt to save the hostage.  Granted, I haven't done the renegade path on thane's loyalty mission, but saying you should shoot the hostage because it's the fastest and simplest way doesn't exactly fit my view of realistic.

[Sisterofshane]

Eh, I wouldn't say that they are unrealistic. Just sometimes, unnecessary.

Like shooting the mech with no arms during Overlord. Or acting generally like a jerk to everyone you know.

In fact, it's mostly the personality of the renegades that bugs me. I think they nailed it a little better with Garrus as a renegade then they did with Shepard.

[Sisterofshane]

Ferris95 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Eh, I wouldn't say that they are unrealistic. Just sometimes, unnecessary.

Like shooting the mech with no arms during Overlord. Or acting generally like a jerk to everyone you know.

In fact, it's mostly the personality of the renegades that bugs me. I think they nailed it a little better with Garrus as a renegade then they did with Shepard.

Play a Renegon then, bad ass with a touch of class. 

I usually play paragade.  I really loved a few of the renegade interrupts in ME2 -- like shooting the mech with Garrus' rifle in his recruitment mission.

[Zu Long]

Memmahkth wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...

wait wait wait.. realistic renegade decisions includes shooting kolyat's hostage?! So you're saying that in real life, hostages get shot by the authorities all the time.. or just that there are no renegade hostage negotiators in real life?

No what they are saying is trying to save all parties involved isn't realistic.

He says fastest and simplest.  Nothing about making an attempt to save the hostage.  Granted, I haven't done the renegade path on thane's loyalty mission, but saying you should shoot the hostage because it's the fastest and simplest way doesn't exactly fit my view of realistic.

Good point. Renegade choices are generally simpler and quicker than the Paragon options. However, that doesn't make them realistic or logical, contrary to the claims of some.

[Thompson family]

I'll get back to Boiny Bunny soon, but Volus Warlord's presented a good list.

1. Keeping the Collector base.

This is the only weighty Renegade option to tempt me. I'll get to the others later.

My first thought was "neither. I need to preserve this base and hand this evidence to the Council."

Upon reflection, however, you realize there is no evidence that connects the Collectors to the Reapers.

Harbinger communicated with the Collectors through the Collector general. He communicated with the Collector general through a terminal. Even when he "possessed" a collector, he went through the general.

So, you go to the Collector base and find a radio with no one answering on the other end.

But there's a dead Reaper inside?

There's a dead robot partially covered with melted people. Those Collectors, they really were twisted and sick.

After all, the Council "didn't recover even half of that thing" Sovereign (Anderson) -- which means they recovered something more than a third of it. Sovereign was huge. A third of it was much bigger than the "baby" reaper -- or pieces of it -- still in the Collector base. The base isn't going to prove the Reapers are real. An equally plausible explanation is that the Collectors built Sovereign for the Geth.

OK. But we can still study the tech, right.?

A Reaper that's been dead 37 million years still indoctrinates people and an active Collector base won't?

I mean seriously. How could that NOT happen?

EDI drew detailed blueprints of the thing. We used them to plan the attack.

True story. There was a unit in WWII that was landed on the beaches of remote islands unoccupied by the Japanese but where Japanese airplanes were crashed. They went in and made details sketches and notes of what they found.

That's what EDI just did.

TIM didn't want the base for intelligence. He wanted the base because it would spare him the construction costs of building his own.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 août 2011 - 03:40 .

[JukeFrog]

Zu Long wrote...

9. Because letting your friend murder someone in cold blood is realistic.

This has nothing to do with whether the decision is realistic or not, but it feels wrong NOT to let Garrus kill Sidonis. Shepard didn't know those 10 ppl that died on Omega, s/he doesn't know what they gave their lives for, and s/he doesn't know Sidonis. Garrus knew his team longer than he knew Shepard, he fought and bled with them for two years. IMO, it's not Shepard's place to decide whether or not Sidonis should die.

[ObserverStatus]

Here is how I justify my behavior:

1. I had to kill Shiala and massacre Zhu's hope to prevent the Thorian from regrowing in their bodies.
2. I wasn't going to hug Tali. Her suit is basically a skintight port-a-potty.
3. I'd had enough of that reporter woman's disingenuous assertions.
4. I had to kill the Rachni Queen to spare her the humiliation of being enslaved, her children deep fried in coconut batter and sold to Krogans as "space shrimp".
5. No really councilor, there must be something seriously wrong with our FTL com buoy! I would never disconnect on you intentionally!
6. Miranda and Jack had forgotten whose opinion is the one that mattered and needed to be reminded.
7. Do I really want to let the homicidal geth who attacked eden prime share their thoughts and experiences with the ones who are supposed to be my allies?
8. Morinth isn't going to kill me for doing any of these other things.

Modifié par bobobo878, 24 août 2011 - 03:53 .

[TheOptimist]

JukeFrog wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

9. Because letting your friend murder someone in cold blood is realistic.

This has nothing to do with whether the decision is realistic or not, but it feels wrong NOT to let Garrus kill Sidonis. Shepard didn't know those 10 ppl that died on Omega, s/he doesn't know what they gave their lives for, and s/he doesn't know Sidonis. Garrus knew his team longer than he knew Shepard, he fought and bled with them for two years. IMO, it's not Shepard's place to decide whether or not Sidonis should die.

Full disclosure, I generally play Paragon.  I don't know whether it's realistic or not, but I DO know that if anyone had pulled, or tried to pull that kind of betrayal against MY Shepard's team (I'm looking at you, Massani and Lawson) that person would die quickly.  And knowing that, I always felt I had no right to tell Garrus he was wrong.

[Thompson family]

Sorry for the wait, Boiny Bunny. Here goes.

Balak is a known terrorist who almost killed millions of people and started  an inter-galactic war.

An intergalactic war that either:

A: The Batarian Hegemony wants, assuming he was acting with their approval, or
B: The Batarian Hegemony doesn't want.

If the answer is A, there's going to be another attack whatever you do, even if you kill Balak.
If the answer is B, the Batarian Hegemony will probably take care of this guy with no assistance from me.

I seriously suspect the answer is B, simply because if I were going to start a war, I'd do something that caused a lot more damage to the Alliance's war-fighting capability than destroy a populous but peaceful colony world.

Yes, dumb luck stopped him as much as Shep. He's still alive -- but discredited now.

As for the Bin Laden example, I have to say that he should have been dead a long time ago. If you want to have that debate by personal message, I'm game, but I'm not going to argue that one on a forum because it's so inflamatory. In fairness, about letting the five U.S. hostages die, here's my answer to that:

If I had managed to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks already, as per the "Bring Down the Sky" situation. Yes, I would have let him go to save the hostages.

If 9/11 had already happened? Probably not. My response perhaps isn't rigorously rational, but I don't thnk I'd be rigorously rational if presented with that situation.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 août 2011 - 03:58 .

[Zu Long]

JukeFrog wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

9. Because letting your friend murder someone in cold blood is realistic.

This has nothing to do with whether the decision is realistic or not, but it feels wrong NOT to let Garrus kill Sidonis. Shepard didn't know those 10 ppl that died on Omega, s/he doesn't know what they gave their lives for, and s/he doesn't know Sidonis. Garrus knew his team longer than he knew Shepard, he fought and bled with them for two years. IMO, it's not Shepard's place to decide whether or not Sidonis should die.

See, now THAT I can understand. When you take out "realism," this choice is so much more interesting. I disagree though. For me, in my playthroughs, Garrus was pretty much Shepard's best friend. She did the best she could to set him on the right path in the first game. She couldn't stand to see him become someone who killed only for revenge, rather than the justice he cherishes. Sidonis was a coward and a traitor, and my Shepard couldn't have had more loathing for him- but that wasn't justice, that wasn't stopping a criminal, that was a cold-blooded execution of someone who, at the end of the day, was just scared, not evil.

I'll point out though, that even in the Paragon option, Garrus is the one who ultimately makes the decision to spare him. Shepard moves aside and lets him take his shot if he wants to, which I thought was appropriate. I DO wish there had been an option to tell Sidonis in a voice dripping contempt, "I didn't do it for YOU," when he thanks you.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Amy Wong told me he went to C-Sec and confessed,of course since it was on Omega they couldn't do anything.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 24 août 2011 - 04:03 .

[Dave of Canada]

Not going into big detail about it but here's my "canon" Shep's reasoning:

Feros: I didn't know what'd happen after the Thorian is dead, maybe they'd regrow or long term side-effects could damage the people around them. They were shot dead.

Rachni Queen: I'm going to trust somebody who's word is at gunpoint who threatened to destroy the entire universe many years ago? Yeah, no.

[Not really Renegade but...] Virmire: Ashley, while my LI, died because Kaidan was higher on the chain of command and was defending the bomb. That bomb was necessary, Ashley was not.

Council: Save the forces that are going to actually be capable of fighting Sovereign and possibly destroy him before he summons all the Reapers or risk losing valuable men to protect a half-destroyed ship containing VIP Politicans? Galaxy > Council.

Genophage cure: Destroyed it, the Krogan are working under Wrex's banner because he's capable of controlling the women. They'd kill him should he lose that vital control, therefore it's best to not introduce the genophage cure and remove Wrex's only defense from being ripped apart.

Collector Base: Kept it, it's technology could very well save the damn universe. If it provides nothing, blow it up. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[TheZyzyva]

I'll say this about paragon and renegade decisions: whatever one YOU personally think is "right" or "realistic" is just that, a personal decision. Ultimately I agree with probably 90% of the paragon decisions because that's my personality, and that's a conservative estimate. But that's why they're called paragon and renegade, not good and evil or right and wrong. Taking the quick and messy way to some will feel more correct than the high road.

Again, the only real unrealistic 'gade options I feel are Veetor and the CB. Betray a friend for a group you don't trust and give dangerous tech to a group you don't trust both come off stupid to me.

[TheOptimist]

Thompson family wrote...

I'll get back to Boiny Bunny soon, but Volus Warlord's presented a good list.

1. Keeping the Collector base.

This is the only weighty Renegade option to tempt me. I'll get to the others later.

My first thought was "neither. I need to preserve this base and hand this evidence to the Council."

Upon reflection, however, you realize there is no evidence that connects the Collectors to the Reapers.

Harbinger communicated with the Collectors through the Collector general. He communicated with the Collector general through a terminal. Even when he "possessed" a collector, he went through the general.

So, you go to the Collector base and find a radio with no one answering on the other end.

But there's a dead Reaper inside?

There's a dead robot partially covered with melted people. Those Collectors, they really were twisted and sick.

After all, the Council "didn't recover even half of that thing" Sovereign (Anderson) -- which means they recovered something more than a third of it. Sovereign was huge. A third of it was much bigger than the "baby" reaper -- or pieces of it -- still in the Collector base. The base isn't going to prove the Reapers are real. An equally plausible explanation is that the Collectors built Sovereign for the Geth.

OK. But we can still study the tech, right.?

A Reaper that's been dead 37 million years still indoctrinates people and an active Collector base won't?

I mean seriously. How could that NOT happen?

EDI drew detailed blueprints of the thing. We used them to plan the attack.

True story. There was a unit in WWII that was landed on the beaches of remote islands unoccupied by the Japanese but where Japanese airplanes were crashed. They went in and made details sketches and notes of what they found.

That's what EDI just did.

TIM didn't want the base for intelligence. He wanted the base because it would spare him the construction costs of building his own.

Besides all that, there's Cerberus' long and documented history of epic balls-ups, especially in connection with dangerous research. See: Depot Sigma 23, Overlord, Subject Zero, and the list goes on.

[Thompson family]

1. Already addressed

2.) Telling Kal Raegar to fight rather than hide. You need all the guns you can get.
3.) Beating Kelham to get what you need before his lawyer shows up or playing the Spectre card.
4.) Screaming at Ash to tell her to get the hell off the ship that is getting ripped to pieces rather than trying to explain your reasoning. It's faster when time is vital.
5.) Selling Pitne For's manifest back to him. Much more useful money.
6.) Not letting Miranda speak to Orianna and letting her kill Niket. Risks avoided.
7.) Shooting Kolyat's hostage. Fastest and simplest way to resolve a hostage situation.
8.) Giving the Quarians evidence against Tali's father (if you're scores aren't high enough). The dead are the dead.
I'm sure I could think of many, many more.

2. My Shepard can handle it without getting a wounded guy who's already done more than his share killed.
3. But I have the Spectre card. Why not?
4. Well, my LI's Liara, but the same principle applies. I try to keep beratement of my lover to a minimum. What can I say? I like, uh, enjoying nature.
5. My Shep doesn't know what to do with all the credits he's got already.
6. Why let her kill Niket when you know she's going to regret it and the whole purpose of these loyalty mission is to clear their minds, to get "closure," as Jacob puts it? And there's no harm at all in letting her talk to her sister. Besides, my Shep always takes Jack on this loyalty mission. The purpose is to show Jack that Miranda isn't just a cold-hearted Cerberus cheerleader-- and to hear that great line "I like her. Are we still recruiting?"
7. Not one of the game's more realistic options unless you're a Spectre, which many Renegades aren't. I never shot the hostage, so I can't speculate beyond that.
8. That one's a false choice. The admiralty board is going to reclaim the research ship. They are going to find what happened, even if Tali tires to erase it. She can't possibly find every personal log and record.

The choice is not to keep the information from the Admiralty Board. That's simply not an option. The choice is whether or not to keep the information from being revealed to the public at an open trial. Tali's trying to get Shep to do that -- and this is her loyalty mission, after all. Since winning her loyalty's the real goal here, the choice is completely obvious.

Modifié par Thompson family, 24 août 2011 - 04:15 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Thompson family wrote...

Sorry for the wait, Boiny Bunny. Here goes.

Balak is a known terrorist who almost killed millions of people and started  an inter-galactic war.

An intergalactic war that either:

A: The Batarian Hegemony wants, assuming he was acting with their approval, or
B: The Batarian Hegemony doesn't want.

If the answer is A, there's going to be another attack whatever you do, even if you kill Balak.
If the answer is B, the Batarian Hegemony will probably take care of this guy with no assistance from me.

I seriously suspect the answer is B, simply because if I were going to start a war, I'd do something that caused a lot more damage to the Alliance's war-fighting capability than destroy a populous but peaceful colony world.

I'm going to have to disagree with what you said there.  I very much doubt that the 'government' of Afgahnistan in 2001 wanted an invasion by the US and its allies, yet they didn't manage to stop Bin Laden doing what he did.  Or perhaps they were simply unable to find him - or miscalculated the US's counter-response.

At any rate, many people died, US and Afghanistan civilians and armed forces alike, as a result of those actions.

Yes, dumb luck stopped him as much as Shep. He's still alive -- but discredited now.

My point was that it would be quite easy for him to pull off a similar stunt, and unlikely that by pure chance, a second time, there would be a nearby ship such as the Normandy to step in before it was too late.

As for the Bin Laden example, I have to say that he should have been dead a long time ago. If you want to have that debate by personal message, I'm game, but I'm not going to argue that one on a forum because it's so inflamatory. In fairness, about letting the five U.S. hostages die, here's my answer to that:

If I had managed to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks already, as per the "Bring Down the Sky" situation. Yes, I would have let him go to save the hostages.

If 9/11 had already happened? Probably not. My response perhaps isn't rigorously rational, but I don't thnk I'd be rigorously rational if presented with that situation.

Well, then let me ask you this.  Suppose the Normandy had shown up 3 hours later than it did, and the asteroid had already hit the colony.  Shepard manages to dock his shuttle with Balak's personal shuttle and boards, hoping to eliminate Balak (either for revenge, or to ensure it never happens again).  Except those same 5 hostages are on board, with a bomb nearby.

You are presented with the same decision again.  Save the hostages - let Balak get away, OR kill him and let the hostages die.

Is the decision different because he actually managed to kill millions instead of getting 99% of the way there and being stopped by pure dumb luck at the last instant?

Ultimately, the way I see it, it doesn't matter if he succeeded or not.  He has shown himself to be exceptionally dangerous and willing to engage in acts that could kill millions of people and start wars.  For that, I would eliminate him, paragon or not.

[Dave of Canada]

TheOptimist wrote...

See: Depot Sigma 23,

Failure with minor success.
Cerberus learns, which they'd have no way of knowing otherwise, that the Rachni are not mindless animals.

Overlord

Successful with minor failure. [Renegade]
Failure. [Paragon]
Cerberus is capable of hacking and holding control of the Geth, something nobody else in the Galaxy has proven capable of doing, at the cost of a handful of scientists.

Subject Zero

Very successful with minor failure.
Project Subject Zero was successful in two(three) things:
It provided the strongest human biotic in the galaxy, which was it's original goal.
Subject Zero was used for the success of another Cerberus project, stopping human kidnappings throughout the galaxy. Minor failure occurs if the Collectors kill her / the squad, though main objective is accomplished.
The research of what worked on Biotics and what killed  them allowed for the Alliance Ascension project to treat human biotics, allowing them to harness their abilities and to make them stronger.

[Thompson family]

[quote]Boiny Bunny wrote...

... or miscalculated the US's counter-response.[/quote]

[/quote]

That's the most likely answer, IMO. And they miscalculated the Islamic world's response.

The U.S. was attacked. Islam was blasphemed. But this is not the place to get into that.

[quote]
Well, then let me ask you this.  Suppose the Normandy had shown up 3 hours later than it did, and the asteroid had already hit the colony.  Shepard manages to dock his shuttle with Balak's personal shuttle and boards, hoping to eliminate Balak (either for revenge, or to ensure it never happens again).  Except those same 5 hostages are on board, with a bomb nearby.

You are presented with the same decision again.  Save the hostages - let Balak get away, OR kill him and let the hostages die.[/quote]

Get away in what?

I'd have Miranda do a slam on him and disarm the bomb.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Almost causing a technological apocalypse is a minor failure?

[Sharn01]

Thompson family wrote...

Celestina wrote...
When I headbutted a Krogan. Without a helmet.

Same thing, no helmet -- with a FemShep.

Electrocuting the gunship mechanic.

Sniper shooting the mech in the Garrus loyalty mission.

Going to have to point out that Shepard, male or female is a genetically enhanced super soldier who was brought back from the dead by unknown means.  Shep then recieves several surgeries that reinforce bones, enhance strength though muscle replacement surgery, and dermal plated skin.  S/he also uses a vehicle mounted weapon as a infantry weapon that would shatter the arm of a regular human who tried to fire it.

I will never understand why people seem to assume Shepard is just a regular human.

[Dave of Canada]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Almost causing a technological apocalypse is a minor failure?

When it doesn't occur? Sure.

[SkittlesKat96]

Without metagaming yes, most of the renegade options in the Mass Effect series are actually the smartest options. People have a point when they say that Paragons get off too easy sometimes.

In real life I would have shot Kenson if she was about to blow stuff up right in front of me and possibly kill me. Seriously Shepard got off lucky if he didn't do the renegade interrupt (although obviously Shepard isn't meant to die, but you get my point.)

Some renegade options however aren't realistic and in real life they would just end up in mutiny or people betraying you/hating you.

Seriously, there aren't many military commanders in the history of history that act like 100% renegade Shepard. Else they'd get mutinied/betrayed/completely backstabbed by their squad.

EDIT: Some Paragon choices do have consequences though.

Not killing Vido and Balak for example. Sure, by killing them you are technically being a terrorist yourself for killing Balak and you are letting innocent people die, but you shouldn't let fear compromise your decision making and you shouldn't always negotiate/let the bad guys get away else they'll just cause more trouble.

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 24 août 2011 - 04:31 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I always take the renegade interrupt on Kenson,she mays that derpish face and I just want to hollow out her head.