549 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

Dave of Canada wrote...

She'd ask for Shepard's help the same reason Shiala does in that case, they have no other options.

At least Shiala has a reason to think you'll help her- You let her live before after all.

[TheOptimist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Except Shiala still had the same reason for being there, namely the intrusive scans of her.

Shiala isn't there only for the intrusive scans, she's there to help Feros. She's there even when you've killed everybody. Liz has the same reasoning to try and help Feros (atonement) as Shiala, has the same objectives and could very well fit the spot.

Aside from the fact that there's no reason for you to be getting the quest at all if you killed everyone.  Bioware was trying to make your decision to kill Shiala matter, but I suppose they should have just used Lizbeth for the whole thing.  God knows there'd have been less complaining from the paragon side if you just got an email from Shiala. 
Regardless, you get the exact same quest as Paragons. There is no punishment and the decision to kill the colonists does not 'backfire'.

People want to see both? Oh boy, more replayability for both ME1 and ME2! What company doesn't want that?

A company that would have to write all this extra dialogue, pay all these additional voice actors, create these additional skins, and code for even more complex dialogue options, all while actually producing a game?

[Yakko77]

As for NOT saving the Rachni Queen. No reason to punish the Renegade choice. Maybe you don't have to fight husk versions of Rachni.

[TheOptimist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

If all solutions have the same result, then what's the point of the choice?

Equality. And the result isn't the same, it's just different tastes of the same product.

So killing and not killing the Blue Suns Mechanic should have equal results? Or the Eclipse Squad in Miranda's mission?

I kind of preferred the outcome where when I killed them, they were dead, and it had an effect on the remainder of the mission.

End of mission decisions =/= killing a random merc or two.

Indeed, I'd argue it's way more fun to have different outcomes for the mission decisions.

[Dave of Canada]

TheOptimist wrote...

A company that would have to write all this extra dialogue, pay all these additional voice actors, create these additional skins, and code for even more complex dialogue options, all while actually producing a game?

While adding more replayability which means more people interested in the game as a whole by the time DLC comes out, which results in more people more likely to purchase said DLC earning the company more profit in the longer term. More interest in your game gained through early DLC release (so people aren't out of the game by the time it comes out) or replayability often lead to more DLC sales.

We know a lot of people play Paragon and Renegade, how many more would be interested on the other side of the coin if there was differences between both?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

At least Shiala has a reason to think you'll help her- You let her live before after all.

...and you saved Lizbeth's life and killed the Thorian.

And her mother's life.

[Zu Long]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

If all solutions have the same result, then what's the point of the choice?

Equality. And the result isn't the same, it's just different tastes of the same product.

So killing and not killing the Blue Suns Mechanic should have equal results? Or the Eclipse Squad in Miranda's mission?

I kind of preferred the outcome where when I killed them, they were dead, and it had an effect on the remainder of the mission.

End of mission decisions =/= killing a random merc or two.

Hmmm...no, I still kind of prefer the world where death has a permanent and tangible effect in both cases. When I kill someone, they stay dead. Bioware need not summon some cheap replacement for me. If Elnora comes back to haunt the people who let her live, or even perhaps to offer some kind of sidequest, I'll be okay either way knowing I shot her ass.

[Dave of Canada]

DP.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:11 .

[Dave of Canada]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

At least Shiala has a reason to think you'll help her- You let her live before after all.

...and you saved Lizbeth's life and killed the Thorian.

And her mother's life.

And stopped the Geth.

[Seboist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

At least Shiala has a reason to think you'll help her- You let her live before after all.

...and you saved Lizbeth's life and killed the Thorian.

And her mother's life.

And stopped the Geth.

Renegade Shepard saves our babes and kills them aliens. S/he's a regular Duke Nukem.

[Dave of Canada]

jreezy wrote...

No, it was not made clear. Just because the Rachni Queen said that that's what happen doesn't mean that that is what happened. For all we know the Rachni Queen was just trying to talk her way out of an acid bath.

I'd normally agree, which is entirely why I killed her (and other reasons), though she's safe and out of your reach but still mentions how her ancestors were indoctrinated in ME2.

[Zu Long]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

At least Shiala has a reason to think you'll help her- You let her live before after all.

...and you saved Lizbeth's life and killed the Thorian.

And her mother's life.

You have a point.

So they could have used Lizbeth instead of the random colonist...But either way, you still get the quest right? Even if, as a Paragon, you saved everyone and killed Shiala, you get the same random colonist.

[TheOptimist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

A company that would have to write all this extra dialogue, pay all these additional voice actors, create these additional skins, and code for even more complex dialogue options, all while actually producing a game?

While adding more replayability which means more people interested in the game as a whole by the time DLC comes out, which results in more people more likely to purchase said DLC earning the company more profit in the longer term. More interest in your game gained through early DLC release (so people aren't out of the game by the time it comes out) or replayability often lead to more DLC sales.

We know a lot of people play Paragon and Renegade, how many more would be interested on the other side of the coin if there was differences between both?

There ARE major differences, and I expect there will be even more major differences in ME 3.  The problem comes when people start declaring one path is superior to another (and subsequently demanding that the supposedly superior path be punished to compensate, or something to that effect).  There can be enormous variations between playthroughs, but there IS a limit to the amount Bioware can do and still effectively produce their game.  I really don't have an objection to Renegades getting more cameos and emails in ME 3, but expecting Bioware to think of and include everything is getting your expectations way too high.

[Zu Long]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Your point is?

What I said?

[TheOptimist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

There ARE major differences,

The primary difference is a lack of content. There is some changed dialogue as well. That's about it.

Your lack of 2 minute cameos and email is not a major difference.  The galactic environment is. Your motivations and goals, as can be evidenced on this board, vary widely, as does the way you treat other characters and they, in turn, treat you.  And yes, some decision outcomes and differences were deferred to the 3rd game.  It is important to remember that Bioware always concieved of this as a trilogy and with the success of the first game they were virtually assured of being able to make both of the other two. 

[Kaiser Shepard]

TheOptimist wrote...

There ARE major differences

You obviously haven't played Alpha Protocol...

[Zu Long]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

What I said?

You can play a Paragon but if you killed the colonists and Shiala then you earned a bunch of Renegade points. It was a Renegade choice.

You're a little slow, aren't you?

Your failure to accurately paraphrase what I said makes me worry about your reading comprehension skills.

[TheOptimist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Your lack of 2 minute cameos and email is not a major difference.

It is to me since so far that has been the only real result of the import feature. The main feature the games were sold on. I was told I would import my choices into the next game and see the result.

In most cases there was no result. My import game was largely the same as a default game. That's not fun. I feel cheated.

There was plenty else included with importing, including level increase, resources, and dozens of references to the first game that did not hinge on paragon/renegade choices.  Those choices DO have an impact, one of which can be the absence of certain characters.  For several reasons, including space conservation, a Renegade that killed damn near everyone was made the default assumption for ME 1.  That you take this as an insult says more about you than it does about Bioware.