372 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePwener]

Hellbound555 wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

what does any of the last 2 pages have to do with the realism of paragon and renegade actions? all ive seen is saphra bickering about keeping the collector castle of doom. can we get back on toppic?

Doesn't that always end up being the topic. It's the equivalent of Goldwin's law here in the BSN.

so why DO people bring realism into p vs r?

I don't know. everyone interprets it in they're own way. I prefer realism through actions. Others want realism through sheer faith. Doesn't work that way. One said is wrong, the other is too. The thing is discovering who is less then the other.

But the answer will only be revealed when everyone comes here and tells the ending they got in ME3.

[ThePwener]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

I'd definitely call that a foe.

Quick to judge. very naive and foolish of you. The Rachni are proof of it.

[Homebound]

is it even "realism"? at what point do we measure those actions as "realism"?

[ThePwener]

Hellbound555 wrote...

is it even "realism"? at what point do we measure those actions as "realism"?

You can't.

[Sisterofshane]

ThePwener wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

what does any of the last 2 pages have to do with the realism of paragon and renegade actions? all ive seen is saphra bickering about keeping the collector castle of doom. can we get back on toppic?

Doesn't that always end up being the topic. It's the equivalent of Goldwin's law here in the BSN.

so why DO people bring realism into p vs r?

I don't know. everyone interprets it in they're own way. I prefer realism through actions. Others want realism through sheer faith. Doesn't work that way. One said is wrong, the other is too. The thing is discovering who is less then the other.

But the answer will only be revealed when everyone comes here and tells the ending they got in ME3.

Unfortunately, this is not only a story, but also a game.  They have to design each choice to have a set outcome, unlike real life where every choice has an unlimited number of outcomes.  The best we can hope for is that both the choice and the outcome have a realistic basis to them, or we would be severely disappointed and confused.

[Kaiser Shepard]

UltimaRai wrote...

I think they should have done it like Dragon Age II. A Paragon would calm the argument, whereas the Renegade would halt it. In Mass Effect I don't like how Paragons calm things always and it makes no sense, but a rough approach doesn't solve everything.

Erhm, doing it like Dragon Age II did isn't the answer to any of Mass Effect's issues. I'd rather have my illusion of choice (or actual choice, like in Alpha Protocol) over no choice at all.

ThePwener wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

I'd definitely call that a foe. 

Quick to judge. very naive and foolish of you. The Rachni are proof of it.

Ah, because releasing that beast back into the wild isn't a sure way to cause some future problems?

[ThePwener]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ah, because releasing that beast back into the wild isn't a sure way to cause some future problems?

It's an entire species. It was never a choice.

[ThePwener]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Unfortunately, this is not only a story, but also a game.  They have to design each choice to have a set outcome, unlike real life where every choice has an unlimited number of outcomes.  The best we can hope for is that both the choice and the outcome have a realistic basis to them, or we would be severely disappointed and confused.

Play Alpha Protocol and say that with a straight face. I double dare ya.

[UltimaRai]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

UltimaRai wrote...

I think they should have done it like Dragon Age II. A Paragon would calm the argument, whereas the Renegade would halt it. In Mass Effect I don't like how Paragons calm things always and it makes no sense, but a rough approach doesn't solve everything.

Erhm, doing it like Dragon Age II did isn't the answer to any of Mass Effect's issues. I'd rather have my illusion of choice (or actual choice, like in Alpha Protocol) over no choice at all.

I think it would have because DA II aggressive was having the might to calm things not the power to destroy it.
Also illusion of choice reminded me of Bioshock. Good game, not so much the sequel though.

[GreenDragon37]

ThePwener wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

I'd definitely call that a foe.

Quick to judge. very naive and foolish of you. The Rachni are proof of it.

Ah, yes. Cerberus experiment gone-wrong created from Reaper tech is a great ally! And you call me naive and foolish... oh, Cerberus supporters.  

[Kaiser Shepard]

ThePwener wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ah, because releasing that beast back into the wild isn't a sure way to cause some future problems?

It's an entire species. It was never a choice.

That doesn't amount to much when it's just one animal, so it doesn't constitute as genocide in case you were trying to play that card. Aside from that, I would do the same if Shepard's decision concerned the fate of a colony of rachni or even their entire species, for the simple reason that they are dangerous by their very concept and nature.

UltimaRai wrote...

I think it would have because DA II aggressive was having the might to calm things not the power to destroy it.
Also illusion of choice reminded me of Bioshock. Good game, not so much the sequel though.

Meh, DAII never felt like you had the power to change anything. Pretty much everything you were railroaded into. and what little "choice" there actually is, is dependent on an invisible system the game never really makes you aware of.

BioShock's main premise never was about (an illusion of) choice, so that isn't really an apt comparison. Haven't played the sequel yet, but assuming it didn't change too much I can't see it having any flaws besides not living up to the impossible expectations.

ThePwener wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Unfortunately, this is not only a story, but also a game.  They have to design each choice to have a set outcome, unlike real life where every choice has an unlimited number of outcomes.  The best we can hope for is that both the choice and the outcome have a realistic basis to them, or we would be severely disappointed and confused.

Play Alpha Protocol and say that with a straight face. I double dare ya.

Agreed, AP is a fine example of how choice should be done in these kind of game.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 28 août 2011 - 06:30 .

[ThePwener]

Animal? It reasons and talks to you. That's no animal you racist bastard.

[khordlambert]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ah, because releasing that beast back into the wild isn't a sure way to cause some future problems?

It's an entire species. It was never a choice.

That doesn't amount to much when it's just one animal, so it doesn't constitute as genocide in case you were trying to play that card.

Ummm. Yes it does. You have just wiped out the ONLY thing that could've revitalized the species. Don't go prettying it up, if that wasn't genocide, then it wasn't much better.

[TheZyzyva]

What's this? A P. vs R. thread? It must be the start of a new week here on the BSN!

Look, I don't get why this keeps coming up over and over when it has been beaten bloody dozens of times. What is realistic to you is just that, realistic to YOU. It's an opinion. Neither right nor wrong. Ones logic that is gleaned through there own life experiences will apply to nobody else. Stop saying one way is right and the other is wrong because, "it's logical." That's asinine and, and I really hate to use this word, ignorant.

Yes, I typically agree with the paragon choices, most know that by now I'm guessing, but that's because that's MY logic. Now I have not done a "full 'gade" playthrough, although I'm trying one now starting in ME1, so maybe there are some gripes to be had for that group that I wouldn't know about. And if there are, sorry things didn't work out the way you had hoped, maybe you can fill me in some time. But that doesn't call "realism" or whatever word you want to use into question. So stop saying it does.

I swear, SisterofShane, ItsThatGuy, and I just need to start a "reasonable people of BSN" club. This place needs some kind of leadership. (Yes other reasonable people exist here too, but I see those two a lot)

[Homebound]

i think people pull in their perception of what is real at P vs. R decisions as a form of self-affirmation.

[ThePwener]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Don't think I'm raining on AP, I loved the game, but it had too much choice, if such a thing is possible. Just think about how many different people you could sail into the sunset with and what that meant in terms of different endings.

Many choices, but they were managed brilliantly. No wonder FNV is so great (Lonesome Road sept. 20!).

In the core, it only had 3 endings. Go rogue and become a superhero, join Halbech and takes Margbourg's job, or betray Lelland and use your contacts to create your own super evil corporation to "shape the world as I see fit" as Thoroton puts it. 

I prefer the last one. I really hope Shepard gets the same chance with Cerberus. Kill TIM and sit on the solar throne.

[Homebound]

ThePwener wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Don't think I'm raining on AP, I loved the game, but it had too much choice, if such a thing is possible. Just think about how many different people you could sail into the sunset with and what that meant in terms of different endings.

Many choices, but they were managed brilliantly. No wonder FNV is so great (Lonesome Road sept. 20!).

In the core, it only had 3 endings. Go rogue and become a superhero, join Halbech and takes Margbourg's job, or betray Lelland and use your contacts to create your own super evil corporation to "shape the world as I see fit" as Thoroton puts it. 

I prefer the last one. I really hope Shepard gets the same chance with Cerberus. Kill TIM and sit on the solar throne.

i hope theres a paragade version of that where we kill TIM but use it for good or something like that.

[Kaiser Shepard]

ThePwener wrote...

Animal? It reasons and talks to you. That's no animal you racist bastard.

All the more reason to kill it.

And a parrot can 'talk' as well, but that doesn't mean it necessarily understands what it's saying, or in the case of the queen you meet, actually mean it; it obviously wants to survive, like any species or member thereof would.

khordlambert wrote...

Ummm. Yes it does. You have just wiped out the ONLY thing that could've revitalized the species. Don't go prettying it up, if that wasn't genocide, then it wasn't much better.

There wasn't much of a species left by the time we get to make our decision, so meh. Killing the last turian doesn't equal killing their entire species either, even more so if you do so for a reason other than killing the last of a species.

[ThePwener]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Animal? It reasons and talks to you. That's no animal you racist bastard.

All the more reason to kill it.

And a parrot can 'talk' as well, but that doesn't mean it necessarily understands what it's saying, or in the case of the queen you meet, actually mean it; it obviously wants to survive, like any species or member thereof would.

khordlambert wrote...

Ummm. Yes it does. You have just wiped out the ONLY thing that could've revitalized the species. Don't go prettying it up, if that wasn't genocide, then it wasn't much better.

There wasn't much of a species left by the time we get to make our decision, so meh. Killing the last turian doesn't equal killing their entire species either, even more so if you do so for a reason other than killing the last of a species.

So denying the existance of future beings doesn't count? You are sick or just dumb. I never expected such things from you Kaiser. So you would make those choices if it was all real? Sure you would. Yo'd commit suicide soon after.

[Homebound]

Kaiser why do you think killing off the rachni is pegged in the game as a renegade option?

[TheZyzyva]

Hellbound555 wrote...

i think people pull in their perception of what is real at P vs. R decisions as a form of self-affirmation.

Haha, forgot the OP was actually a "why" question. This, this, and more this.

Again, it comes down to not understanding a varience of opinion. To bash on another persons perceptions and conclusions without even trying to understand how they were arrived upon is, simply put, a d***-move. To hold yourself to such a level of infalibility while demeaning others is the trademark of a sociopath, not that I'm accusing anyone here of being one, I'm just pointing that out.

I can respect the opinions that the renegade players have expressed, but they way they are argued for is often nothing to be respected.

[ThePwener]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Kaiser why do you think killing off the rachni is pegged in the game as a renegade option?

Don't try, he'll just say some smarky remark that renegades are the true paragons and wat-not.

[Kaiser Shepard]

ThePwener wrote...

So denying the existance of future beings doesn't count? You are sick or just dumb. I never expected such things from you Kaiser. So you would make those choices if it was all real? Sure you would. Yo'd commit suicide soon after.

Oh please, I would be proud of what I'd have done. Letting a hivemind species go out in the wild is just asking for trouble. Heck, it's that which make them inequal to "our" own species to begin with; you aren't giving Citadel race X a change to begin anew, you're simply releasing a cunning beast which will soon have an army of slaves to serve it.