549 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

I agree with the original poster. I never felt good about letting the rachni queen live based on the flimsy evidence of her sayind, sorry it was all a big mistake. I often imagine her chuckling about just how stupid that human was that let her live.

[HogarthHughes 3]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh look another antiparagon thread.

We'll never stop ****ing and moaning about how hard we have it!  Even if the "renegade" decisions turn out much better, I'm sure us renegades will manage to find a way to whine about "paragon favoritism."  Although I would think that if Bioware were to demonstrate that the renegade path is relatively equivilent to the paragon one it would be more difficult to perceive ourselves as getting the short end of the stick.

Stuff like every single squadmate arguing against keeping the Collector Base (even if they advocated preserving it while in the base?) or the Rachni promising aid (admittedly in a slightly unsettling manner) doesn't bode well for ME3.  Oh that and a lame track record of cameo appearances (e.g. why couldn't Anoleis be hanging around Illium on business and have some small petty task for Shepard?  Human Council anyone?  Or did every character that is spared have to end up either harmless or good?)

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 04 septembre 2011 - 12:39 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

I think you're forgetting the details of the conversation with her. It COULD just be that she's bluffing but her bluff is amazingly accurate.

She talks of a "sour yellow note" that corrupted the "song" of her race (Their communal means of communication) and made them frenzied against the other species, it sounds a LOT like the original rachni were indoctrinated. HOWEVER, it still leaves to the possibility of it turning bad again even without needing a heel-face-turn on the queens part. If the rachni song was corrupted by indoctrination once, who's to say it won't happen again?

That said, any organic shock troops used against the reapers for any extended period will end up indoctrinated so that could apply to any organics you've earned the respect of... on that basis, befriending the Alliance or any of the council races is a risk factor because they might get indoctrinated

Apologies for the slow response if you even bother to read this, didn't see this post for a while.

Anyways if the Rachni were indoctrinated then the Reapers apparently managed to do so to just about every single member of the species, at least all those capable of advanced communication with aliens (Queens).  The Rachni Queen in ME hadn't even hatched yet, so that or her distance from her fellow Rachni might have protected her.  I sincerely doubt the entire Reaper fleet (if any other than Sovereign even) were anywhere near the Rachni when they were discovered by the Salarians.  Perhaps they had been indoctrinated before the Reapers left after wiping out the Protheans, but I doubt it.  Otherwise they would likely have been turned into a slave race that would be mindless automatons serving as directed (Collectors, Keepers).

So again, likely if they were indoctrinated all it took was one Reaper.  Add that to the fact that they are a hive mind "society" that relies on a few Queens for direction, and they look to be prime targets for an entire fleet of Reapers.  Leaders of aliens & humans could certainly be indoctrinated after extended periods of time near Reapers or some Reaper creations, but they can be replaced and they do not directly control or influence their entire species (on a biological level) as Rachni Queens do.  A human does not grow up requiring the presence/influence of lets say the President or Prime Minister of their country in order to develop correctly.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[Punk4Real]

DaftArbiter wrote...

Great potential paragon backfirings:

1. After getting saved by Shepard so many times, Conrad Verner finally gets his act together and quickly becomes the biggest hero in the galaxy, stealing the spotlight from the guy who defeated Saren.

2. Because you're too nice, your crew starts to see you as exploitable and unwilling to ever punish them:

-Joker flies around wherever he wants instead of going to the proper destinations.
-Garrus becomes a lazy-ass who uses calibrations as an excuse to never do anything.
-Grunt beats you up and kicks you out of the Captain's Quarters, taking it for himself.
-Jack blows Kelly out the airlock when nobody's looking.
-Your LI becomes a **** and starts sleeping with everyone else on board. Especially with Jacob (if they're female) or Miranda (if they're male).
-Tali tries to use her cuteness to get Shep to give her whatever she wants, whenever she wants.
-Mordin injects you with a vaccine that's actually botulism.

Haha that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm hoping for!
Good list

KotorEffect3 wrote...

oh look another antiparagon thread.

No, it's not antiparagon as I played as a paragon myself. I'm just talking about predictability. How come every person we spare turned out to be good? Pretty much every decision paragons made had no bad consequences so far. Hopefully that'll change in ME3.

LGTX wrote...

Some choices should backfire. Paragon/Renegade alignment irrelevant.

Not really.
Renegade choices can't possibly backfire because they are renegade choices, i.e. bad decisions.
If you kill someone, thats it. It's done. You already know the consequences.
But if you spare someone, you can't possibly say whether they will help or betray you later on.
That's all I'm trying to say - so far, all paragon choices have had good outcomes. That should change.

Modifié par Punk4Real, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:02 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Punk4Real wrote...

Haha that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm hoping for!
Good list


No, it's not antiparagon as I played as a paragon myself. I'm just talking about predictability. How come every person we spare turned out to be good? Pretty much every decision paragons made had no bad consequences so far. Hopefully that'll change in ME3.

Not really.
Renegade choices can't possibly backfire because they are renegade choices, i.e. bad decisions.
If you kill someone, thats it. It's done. You already know the consequences.
But if you spare someone, you can't possibly say whether they will help or betray you later on.
That's all I'm trying to say - so far, all paragon choices have had good outcomes. That should change.

What exactly do you mean by "bad decisions?"  That they are inherently morally wrong?  Or that they are the stupid decisions?  Or both?

Many of the Renegade decisions are more complex than simply killing someone, for example the consequences (and benefits) of sacrificing the Council should go beyond just "they're dead, they won't come back."  Or what about killing Sidonis?  Shouldn't that change Garrus' attitude (as killing Dr. Heart was supposed to) rather than only resulting in the death of an NPC?

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[Punk4Real]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

Punk4Real wrote...

Haha that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm hoping for!
Good list


No, it's not antiparagon as I played as a paragon myself. I'm just talking about predictability. How come every person we spare turned out to be good? Pretty much every decision paragons made had no bad consequences so far. Hopefully that'll change in ME3.

Not really.
Renegade choices can't possibly backfire because they are renegade choices, i.e. bad decisions.
If you kill someone, thats it. It's done. You already know the consequences.
But if you spare someone, you can't possibly say whether they will help or betray you later on.
That's all I'm trying to say - so far, all paragon choices have had good outcomes. That should change.

What exactly do you mean by "bad decisions?"  That they are inherently morally wrong?  Or that they are the stupid decisions?  Or both?

Many of the Renegade decisions are more complex than simply killing someone, for example the consequences (and benefits) of sacrificing the Council should go beyond just "they're dead, they won't come back."

Bad as in morally. And yeah, I've played as a renegade on my second playthrough. And true, some decisions are more complex than killing people. But I can't see a renegade choice backfiring. If a renegade choice backfires, won't that result in a positive outcome?

Modifié par Punk4Real, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:16 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Punk4Real wrote...

Bad as in morally. And yeah, I've played as a renegade on my second playthrough. And true, some decisions are more complex than killing people. But I can't see a renegade choice backfiring. If a renegade choice backfires, won't that be a positive outcome?

Ah well yeah generally the renegade path is meant to be morally corrupt (but often done in favor of better results, of varying effectiveness depending on what is desired).  What do you mean by backfiring=positive outcome?  For instance if keeping the Collector Base were to backfire spectacularly, not only indoctrinating Cerberus completely but giving the Reapers back their production facility with no gains for Shepards cause whatsoever.  Then what would be the positive outcome?  The Renegade got told?  "Yeah, shouldn't have done that foo'!"

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[LGTX]

Punk4Real wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Some choices should backfire. Paragon/Renegade alignment irrelevant.

Not really.
Renegade choices can't possibly backfire because they are renegade choices, i.e. bad decisions.
If you kill someone, thats it. It's done. You already know the consequences.
But if you spare someone, you can't possibly say whether they will help or betray you later on.
That's all I'm trying to say - so far, all paragon choices have had good outcomes. That should change.

Both alignments have choices which are 'just done'. Killing someone isn't a good description of an abstract renegade choice. Both morality judgements must be put to a straining test of circumstances and repercussions, so both can get equal amounts of different, yet justified screwups as well as productive results for ME3. That's all I'm sayong. Equality.

As to paragons having good results... Not really. Paragons have paragon results, that'd be a more accurate way of putting it. I remember one mission in ME1 when you had to acquire this black market weapon blueprint or something, I think the name of the merchant was... Thax? Anyway, you could go pure paragon boyscout and blow your cover completely. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one off the top of my head. Same with renegade.

[Punk4Real]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

Punk4Real wrote...

Bad as in morally. And yeah, I've played as a renegade on my second playthrough. And true, some decisions are more complex than killing people. But I can't see a renegade choice backfiring. If a renegade choice backfires, won't that be a positive outcome?

Ah well yeah generally the renegade path is meant to be morally corrupt (but often done in favor of better results, of varying effectiveness depending on what is desired).  What do you mean by backfiring=positive outcome?  For instance if keeping the Collector Base were to backfire spectacularly, not only indoctrinating Cerberus completely but giving the Reapers back their production facility with no gains for Shepards cause whatsoever.  Then what would be the positive outcome?  The Renegade got told?  "Yeah, shouldn't have done that foo'!"

Oh right! I messed up sorry. I meant this - The renegade option was to give the base to the ceberus so that we can use it against the reapers. But it backfired as ceberus is planning to use it for their own selfish needs. So yeah, renegade options have backfired numerous times, but paragon options have yet to do so.

LGTX wrote...

Punk4Real wrote...

LGTX wrote...

Some choices should backfire. Paragon/Renegade alignment irrelevant.

Not really.
Renegade choices can't possibly backfire because they are renegade choices, i.e. bad decisions. 
If you kill someone, thats it. It's done. You already know the consequences.
But if you spare someone, you can't possibly say whether they will help or betray you later on.
That's all I'm trying to say - so far, all paragon choices have had good outcomes. That should change.

Both alignments have choices which are 'just done'. Killing someone isn't a good description of an abstract renegade choice. Both morality judgements must be put to a straining test of circumstances and repercussions, so both can get equal amounts of different, yet justified screwups as well as productive results for ME3. That's all I'm sayong. Equality.

As to paragons having good results... Not really. Paragons have paragon results, that'd be a more accurate way of putting it. I remember one mission in ME1 when you had to acquire this black market weapon blueprint or something, I think the name of the merchant was... Thax? Anyway, you could go pure paragon boyscout and blow your cover completely. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one off the top of my head. Same with renegade.

Touché. You make a good point. But I still don't think paragon options have had any significant consequences which could be considered bad. Renegade choices have already backfired - giving the base to cerberus for example.

Modifié par Punk4Real, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:36 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Punk4Real wrote...

Oh right! I messed up sorry. I meant this - The renegade option was to give the base to the ceberus so that we can use it against the reapers. But it backfired as ceberus is planning to use it for their own selfish needs. So yeah, renegade options have backfired numerous times, but paragon options have yet to do so.

We don't know what the (if any) positives of keeping the Collector Base are though.  It could still turn out good in some form or other, we can't tell yet.  Cerberus may be an enemy in ME3, but that doesn't mean that any knowledge gleaned from the Base couldn't still prove beneficial.

[Punk4Real]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

Punk4Real wrote...

Oh right! I messed up sorry. I meant this - The renegade option was to give the base to the ceberus so that we can use it against the reapers. But it backfired as ceberus is planning to use it for their own selfish needs. So yeah, renegade options have backfired numerous times, but paragon options have yet to do so.

We don't know what the (if any) positives of keeping the Collector Base are though.  It could still turn out good in some form or other, we can't tell yet.  Cerberus may be an enemy in ME3, but that doesn't mean that any knowledge gleaned from the Base couldn't still prove beneficial.

True. Guess we won't know anything for sure until ME3 comes out. That's just the vibe I got from the trailers, and gameplay demos. Though I hope some people paragons spared in ME2 will turn out to be mistakes.

[LGTX]

Punk4Real wrote...

Touché. You make a good point. But I still don't think paragon options have had any significant consequences which could be considered bad. Renegade choices have already backfired - giving the base to cerberus for example.

It's a debatable statement. The base was preserved so Cerby could use it against the Reapers, correct? What if that's exactly what happened? The demos which show Cerberus as an enemy are confirmed to be from around halfway through the game, anything could happen leading up to that. Preserving the base concluded the second game, and you shouldn't solidly declare how that played out until you've played the third in all its context.

But I won't dispute the fairness of outcomes on either end of BioWare's morality meter. I'm just saying an equal amount of unexpected successes and backfires would benefit both sides.

Modifié par LGTX, 04 septembre 2011 - 01:52 .

[Cuthlan]

Punk4Real wrote...



Touché. You make a good point. But I still don't think paragon options have had any significant consequences which could be considered bad. Renegade choices have already backfired - giving the base to cerberus for example.

By the looks of things, that choice doesn't really matter. Cerberus is probably going to be indoctrinated by the base somehow anyway, so I don't see how one choice is backfiring and one isn't.

[Arppis]

Cuthlan wrote...

Punk4Real wrote...



Touché. You make a good point. But I still don't think paragon options have had any significant consequences which could be considered bad. Renegade choices have already backfired - giving the base to cerberus for example.

By the looks of things, that choice doesn't really matter. Cerberus is probably going to be indoctrinated by the base somehow anyway, so I don't see how one choice is backfiring and one isn't.

Yep, maybe you can retake the base and gain some technological advantage OOOOR new weapon. We don't know it yet...

Besides, why moan about choices having negative conciquences, when it's obvious at the momment you take the choice what is going to happen. You kill characters and they might have had some sidemissions later on, you will miss those. Stop looking at the red or blue colored answers and just play the game.

If you want certain kind of results, you need to play the game in certain kind of way!

[KotorEffect3]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

  Or did every character that is spared have to end up either harmless or good?)

It is heavily implied that letting Rana go on Virmire is a mistake.  Also we get a nasty email from Toombs for working for Cerberus.  We also fully expect to be bitten in the ass for letting Balak go.

[Nashiktal]

Not everyone we spare is good mate.

Rana? Involved in yet more krogan cloning. Fist? Crimelord who worked for Saren (and the shadow broker, double whammy) and tried to kill Tali. Rachni? Indoctrination possibility.

This game has a paragon and renegade meter, but the system just doesn't feel right when pushed onto all the decisions we have. I think its limiting the choices we COULD have.

[BubbleDncr]

From my perspective, Bioware just likes to reward you for being at either extreme - so people who went either full paragon or full renegade should thus get the best results. Example: even tho my renegade shep was a total jerk, she was able to get everyone's loyalty because of her ability to use renegade conversation options when crew members got int arguments with each other, whereas my mostly paragon shep who occasionally did bad things (or things the game said we bad *cough*killing geth instead of brainwashing them*cough*), was unable to do that and had to pick sides, thus losing the loyalty of a crew member.

So thus, I have to think that for every renegade option that backfires, a paragon one also has to. So hopefully my more neutral shep just made the correct paragon and correct renegade options.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

My god... you renegade players are the biggest whinners arn't you? When has any decision ever backfired for anyone? That's right never.

You know what's ironic? Renegades are suppose to only care about the results as long as things work out for them they don't care about anything else... but you complain that other people take options that you don't agree with and demand that they are punished for daring to do something that you didn't.

Have you ever noticed how there are never any threads complaining about Renegade's and their decisions? We Paragon players are ironically the true renegades because we don't care what you do or what you think is right. We make our choices and we don't look back second guessing ourselves.

Renegades go back to sucking TIM's boots.

[shiftylookingspacecow]

Sorry for kinda throwing this off topic, but the "let the bad guy go to save people or kill him to save more people" choice never made sense to me. Don't we have the baddest frigate in the galaxy just sitting in orbit? why not 'spare' them, save the hostages, then tell Joker to blow Balak or Vido out of the sky?

[shiftylookingspacecow]

I don't really want choices to 'backfire', i just want to see an effect from choices that should have an effect. They whole "save or kill the council" thing was very poorly translated into ME2

[Golden Owl]

Keeping the Genophage cure...that one continues to keep me on edge.....Paragon saves the Galaxy, everyone loves him, then the Krogan breed out of control again and take Galaxy over, destroying everyone in their path...end of Galaxy........

Modifié par Golden Owl, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:18 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Golden Owl wrote...

Keeping the Genophage cure...that one continues to keep me on edge.....Paragon saves the Galaxy, everyone loves him, then the Krogan breed out of control again and tke Galaxy over, destroying everyone in their path...end of Galaxy........

Good thing it is years away from being finished.

[111987]

shiftylookingspacecow wrote...

Sorry for kinda throwing this off topic, but the "let the bad guy go to save people or kill him to save more people" choice never made sense to me. Don't we have the baddest frigate in the galaxy just sitting in orbit? why not 'spare' them, save the hostages, then tell Joker to blow Balak or Vido out of the sky?

Same with the Rachni Queen; why couldn't we have left her in the tank and let the Council deal with it?

[AdmiralCheez]

Nashiktal wrote...

As soon as renegade choices start backfiring let me know.