549 réponses à ce sujet

[LGTX]

I think many "true" renegades (or the opposite - just read "majority") are actually seeing submission preferable to extinction at the hands of the Reapers, so their ultimate motive might not be illogical.

However, I do agree with what you've said so far, Prothy. Go Prothean thinking!

[GodWood]

Prothy your analogy is stupid.

If we were to take a 'renegade approach' to this scenario it would be burn the faulty crops (and only the faulty crops) to prevent the good crops from being corrupted.

Thus you (the paragon) have potential to have more crops but at the risk of having a bunch infected (to the point where you might have less) whereas the renegade would have less crops but none of them would be spoiled.

At least try to see the validity behind both choices rather then blindly following blue.

LGTX wrote...
I think many "true" renegades (or the opposite - just read "majority") are actually seeing submission preferable to extinction at the hands of the Reapers, so their ultimate motive might not be illogical.

No that's just Saphra.

Modifié par GodWood, 05 septembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

[quote]Prothy the Prothean wrote...

[quote]Kaiser Shepard wrote...

[quote]EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You can't say that EVERY renegade choice is like logical and pragmatic.[/quote]
Aside from the big decisions that also concern Cerberus, they are.

[/quote]
What you describe is not pragmatic logic, it is fear and paranoia mixed with madness.

"Release the Rachni? No, they might come back and kill us all."[/quote]
I don't trust the queen we might, and the rachni are by nature incompatible with and inferior to the other species.

[quote]"Spare Shiala? No, she betrayed Saren once, and will probably betray someone else if I let her go."[/quote]
One of the risks I did take, even though there are obvious probable consequences, such as the Thorian being reborn through her.

[quote["Let Balak go? No, he will organize another attack like the one against Nova Terra despite the fact that said attack was a once-in-a-million, one-shot chance due to circumstance."[/quote]
Fiat iustitia ruat caelum. Literally, in this case.

[quote]"Save the Destiny Ascension? No, if we do, Sovereign will prevail."[/quote]
Because Sovereign activating the Citadel Relay isn't bad at all.

[quote]"Rewrite the heretic geth? No, they will turn back to Reaper control and betray us."[/quote]
Legion specifically states there is a non-zero of the decision firing back. Also, you would feel comfortable brainwashing an entire faction of an alien race?

[quote]"Trust the aliens? No, they will betray us."[/quote]
Never said I didn't trust them.

[quote]"Cure the genophage? No, the krogan will betray us."[/quote]
It's not so much a case of them possibly betraying us as it is them almost inevitably giving in to their savage nature. That being said, the more pragmatic Paragon decision in Mordin's LM might turn out to be fairly thought through, depending on whether or not there is a secondary decision in ME3 as to whether you actually deploy the cure or not.

[quote]"Destroy the Collector Base? No, without it we cannot win."[/quote]
Because obviously a Reaper factory-womb won't supply you with useful knowledge on your enemy...

[quote]"Fight the Reapers? No, we cannot win, so we should join them."[/quote]
That's just Saphra  (bah, ninja'd on this one <_<)

[quote]There is a prothean saying that is very appropriate, if taken somewhat out of its original context; "A fearing man is a dead man, and cowards and corpses win no wars."[/quote]
Then make sure there is nothing left to fear.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:11 .

[Arppis]

GodWood wrote...

Prothy your analogy is stupid.

If we were to take a 'renegade approach' to this scenario it would be burn the faulty crops (and only the faulty crops) to prevent the good crops from being corrupted.

Thus you (the paragon) have potential to have more crops but at the risk of having a bunch infected (to the point where you might have less) whereas the renegade would have less crops but none of them would be spoiled.

At least try to see the validity behind both choices rather then blindly following blue.

LGTX wrote...
I think many "true" renegades (or the opposite - just read "majority") are actually seeing submission preferable to extinction at the hands of the Reapers, so their ultimate motive might not be illogical.

No that's just Saphra.

Ah, paragon option here would propably go like this: Isolate, find cure, get all healthy and to full speed!

[GodWood]

Prothy the Prothean wrote...
We have yet to reach a point where we can determine whether crops are faulty or not, but Renegades are burning theirs down regardless because of the mere possibility.

The Renegade mindset is like killing hatchlings because they "could" grow up to become murderers. With that kind of logic you would have to kill all of them since no one is exempt.

Still not even trying to understand the renegade choices I see.

How closed minded of you.

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
That's just Saphra  (bah, ninja'd on this one )

That's twice I've stolen your thunder

Modifié par GodWood, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[LGTX]

If we understood them, we'd not oppose them. The same goes for your perception of the paragon ones.

[GodWood]

LGTX wrote...
If we understood them, we'd not oppose them. The same goes for your perception of the paragon ones.

Before making any decision I way up the pros and cons of both sides and see the validity of each option then I make my decision.

I understand the reasoning for [most] paragon decisions, it's just that the renegade ones are often better.

[LGTX]

I don't metagame much either. Had to a little in ME2, but I have a "valid" playthrough where all my choices are based on the judgment you described.

I end up prioritizing the productivity of the paragon ones, however.

[lunaruaria]

I honestly do not see how some of the paragon choices could turn out poorly for Shepard. Even in the games loading screens the game said "Becomes the ultimate hero fill up or paragon bar" I am paraphrasing here. there were no loading screen that was like "Be a bad ass fill up your renegade bar." I think if all of the choices are going to be jumbled into a pile of "ideal" and "oh crap" then Bioware should not sing the praises of one path or another.

I dont think the final battle will be harder or easier on paragons or renegades. yeah maybe it will be easier for a paragon to drum up support at first, but what happens when two of your allies refuse to work together. I think a paragon will end up having more difficult and emotionally difficult choices in the end. where as a renegade has already made some "negative" they may have a harder time gaining allies but at least these allies will not split up.

in the final game,
Renegade harder at first to have allies but they stay true to the cause.
Paragon calling for aid is easier but allies may split and be the cause of really painful choices.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Prothy the Prothean wrote...

Madness cannot be understood.

At least try to look into the abyss...

[Big I]

lunaruaria wrote...
 there were no loading screen that was like "Be a bad ass fill up your renegade bar."

There actually was a loading screen that said exactly that.

[In Exile]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
Sacrificing the Council achieves exactly what it was intended to do:  More power for humans at the expense of aliens.  How it will pan out in the long run remains to be seen.  If you think purposely allowing the leader(s) of a species/nation die in order to do a power grab is supposed to make members of said species/nation like you, then I don't know what to say.  No human Council cameo is pretty lame, but really Spectre status is pretty meaningless in ME2 and barely changes a couple lines of dialogue.

Rewriting the Heretics is the "paragon" option in that case, though really it is just as "renegade" as it is to blow them up if not moreso.

It had nothing to do with a power-grab, re: the Council. You could as easily have done it on grounds of stopping Sovereign at all costs. 

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Nothing about sacrificing the council hints at there being a shift in power,you would think aliens that have been at it for thousands of years would have contingencies in place...guess that is just a human thing.

[In Exile]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
Of course of course!  If the Rachni Queen was lying or better yet gets indoctrinated regardless, we can just kill her right?  We would just have to find her, and assuming we can even do that, kill her!  Its not as though such a turn of events would needlessly cost lives that could have easily been saved had she been dealt with on Noveria.

If these "crops" of yours were capable of growing into a force powerful enough to threaten the entire galaxy, well then I guess I'm just being "irrationally afraid and paranoid" when I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt given the actions of all their kind who came before.

Yeah, totally that, except let's do it this way:

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
Of course of course!  If the Cerberus was lying or better yet gets indoctrinated regardless, we can just kill them right?  We would just have to find them, and assuming we can even do that, kill them!  Its not as though such a turn of events would needlessly cost lives that could have easily been saved had we not given them the collector base.

If these "crops" of yours were capable of growing into a force powerful enough to threaten the entire galaxy, well then I guess I'm just being "irrationally afraid and paranoid" when I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt given the actions of all their kind who came before.

I've never undestood why keeping the Collector base is different than saving the Rachni. 

Modifié par In Exile, 05 septembre 2011 - 06:12 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

In Exile wrote...

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
Of course of course!  If the Rachni Queen was lying or better yet gets indoctrinated regardless, we can just kill her right?  We would just have to find her, and assuming we can even do that, kill her!  Its not as though such a turn of events would needlessly cost lives that could have easily been saved had she been dealt with on Noveria.

If these "crops" of yours were capable of growing into a force powerful enough to threaten the entire galaxy, well then I guess I'm just being "irrationally afraid and paranoid" when I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt given the actions of all their kind who came before.

Yeah, totally that, except let's do it this way:

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
Of course of course!  If the Cerberus was lying or better yet gets indoctrinated regardless, we can just kill them right?  We would just have to find them, and assuming we can even do that, kill them!  Its not as though such a turn of events would needlessly cost lives that could have easily been saved had we not given them the collector base.

If these "crops" of yours were capable of growing into a force powerful enough to threaten the entire galaxy, well then I guess I'm just being "irrationally afraid and paranoid" when I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt given the actions of all their kind who came before.

I've never undestood why keeping the Collector base is different than saving the Rachni. 

You answered it yourself here I'll underline it for you

[eye basher]

All i'm gonna say is''good,bad i'm the guy with the gun''.

[TheOptimist]

GodWood wrote...

Sacrifice the Council and put Udina in charge.

Council races hate you.
The Council won't see you.
And you lose your Spectre status.

That's seems like a choice backfiring to me.

Council races 'hate' you, yet will still join you. No in game effects, no story dillemmas caused. None.
The Council won't see you, but does nothing to stop you. No in game effects, no story dillemmas caused. None.
You lose your spectre status, but are not prevented from doing anything a Spectre can do. No in game effects, no story dillemmas caused . None.

I see zero backfiring, even when there rightfully should have been some.

[Nashiktal]

Can we stop with the "true" renegade and paragon? For the absolutes depicted, I have been seeing many cliques within each group.

[Ramus Quaritch]

I'm 99% positive that the choice to let Balak go in Bring Down the Sky will have negative repercussions later. I'd also like to see the choice of rewriting the heretic Geth ("good") instead of destroying them ("bad") have a negative impact.

[Dave of Canada]

Nashiktal wrote...

Can we stop with the "true" renegade and paragon? For the absolutes depicted, I have been seeing many cliques within each group.

It's easier to argue pure Renegade vs pure Paragon, if you try and argue Renegons and Paragades it really doesn't jive too well.

[Seboist]

It's not so much that Paragon choices need to "backfire", it's that the choices and outcomes need to be better thought-out and not exist in vacuums like it does now. That and not being just cosmetic would help things too....

[HogarthHughes 3]

Prothy the Prothean wrote...

Not exactly.

Paragon risks "troubles" crops (saves everyone despite there being a risk of betrayal), which you personally described as "blind idealism and stupidity".

Renegade burns down his crops (kills everyone to eliminate risk), which for some reason was described as logical and pragmatic.

A Paragon is essentially strengthening the integrity of the galactic platform as a whole, risking that some of the structural pillars might cause instability later, whereas the Renegade is breaking down each pillar completely because he is afraid one failing pillar will bring down the whole platform. The inherent problem here is that the Renegade is completely unaware that he is delivering victory to the Reapers by intentionally destabilizing the galaxy right on the verge of their invasion.

If the intent was to save, then the Renegade has failed miserably. If the intent was to subdue and prepare for submission... well, that would be a different matter.

That was a response to your "argument" that renegade decisions are the result of "fear and paranoia mixed with madness" to demonstrate that such insults are meaningless.  You apparently cannot understand any of the logic behind the renegade mind-set, so there is no point in continuing this.  (admittedly it has already ended hours ago)

[HogarthHughes 3]

In Exile wrote...

It had nothing to do with a power-grab, re: the Council. You could as easily have done it on grounds of stopping Sovereign at all costs. 

The renegade decision in this case is a malicious sacrifice of alien leadership.  It is intended to hurt them, one way or another.  The "Focus on Sovereign" option has the exact same result as the renegade one, with only a slight difference in points awarded.  The reasoning may differ, but the game treats players to the same end result (albeit with the mentioned slight point difference).

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 05 septembre 2011 - 07:21 .