337 réponses à ce sujet

[PrinceLionheart]

Honestly, a lot of the alleged missed content really gets overblown. There's about what, 2 or 3 NPCs who won't appear in ME2 because the renegade options required killing them. And even then, only one of them actually provides a side mission (which in turn "renegade players" still get because a substitute character will be present anyway.)

[Cyberstrike nTo]

LeVaughnX wrote...And I think Jennifer Hale is an emotionless retard but I don't hate anyone who likes her either.

Hale's powerful and emotional performance is FAR better than Meer's emotionless and dull performance.

[mauro2222]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

LeVaughnX wrote...And I think Jennifer Hale is an emotionless retard but I don't hate anyone who likes her either.

Hale's powerful and emotional performance is FAR better than Meer's emotionless and dull performance.

Lol! Again with this? Both have their pros and cons. Sometimes Hale makes me and sometimes Meer makes me .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Bleachrude wrote...

Yes, I think you might want to show more examples since not one of your examples actually shows favoritism..it shows that no action actually has consequence since you dont gain an advantage, but neither do you gain a disadvantage in those situations....

You point out that you see no perks for human dominance anywhere, but at the same time, you don't net any disadvantages anywhere either...

Percs have been more lives saved while accomplishing the same objective... along with having superior story continuity.  Those are advantages exclusive to Paragons.

Take some time and think about it...

Here's 2 more:

Collector Base Decision:

Paragon Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You blow it up.  TIM's upset and Jacob tells you that Cerberus will be coming after you now.  Your whole squad agrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice). In ME3, Cerberus is after you (but Jacob already told you that).

Renegade Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You keep it.  TIM's happy.  Your whole squad disagrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice).  In ME3, Cerberus is after you (wait... wut?)


Fist (ME1) Decision:

Renegade:  You kill Fist because "too many people lost their lives" because of him.  As of ME2, he causes no more trouble.

Paragon:  You spare Fist.  As of ME2, he causes no more trouble (Just like Balak).




See a pattern forming here? 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 décembre 2011 - 09:49 .

[AVPen]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AVPen wrote...
The Paragon Charm option only works if you have a significant number of Paragon points (although this can be countered if you're using an imported Shepard and/or take Zaeed's LM early in the game), i.e. taking the "Save the Factory Workers" path does not automatically guarantee that you'll be able to earn Zaeed's loyalty at the end.

What does the "amount" of Paragon points have to do with the fact that it was a Paragon choice?  Sorry, that's not a fault of my arguement.  And at the end of the day, you can get his loyalty whether you successfully complete the mission or not.  That's the point.

But getting his loyalty is not a guarantee with taking the Paragon path (unlike the Renagade path), which is what you're arguing about like saving the factory workers will automatically earns Zaeed's loyalty regardless if you kill Vido or not  - it's a possibility, not an actuality.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Again utterly wrong - Balak, the terrorist leader, remains at large and uncaught by the Alliance in ME2 and is most likely continuing to commit crimes against the Alliance/human interests (we just never hear about them).

Again?  No.  And utterly wrong?  Hardly.  He remains at large, uncaught... and as of ME2... harmless.  There's no news of any terrorist attacks linked to Balak, no sign that Balak's even positioning to make an attack, no message from him either.  He's just "still at large..." but that's common sense when you let a criminal go... of course they'd still be at large.

The big issue is that he hasn't done anything.  Simple fact.... and no fault to speak of.

He "hasn't done anything" that you know of, which is entirely my point.... just because something isn't reported in-game on the Galactic News broadcast does not mean that events are or are not occuring in the ME universe. Considering an individal as dangerous as Balak has shown himself to be as 'harmless' just because you haven't heard from/about them in a while? That's just absurd. <_<

Modifié par AVPen, 25 décembre 2011 - 09:50 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Sounds like you haven't been reading the arguements at all.  For an easy example, I said Paragon choices get favored "over ANY other choice... including Renegade ones."  As wrong as your assessment of the Renegade is (not every decision is a jerk decision... just like not every Paragon decision is a naive decision), Neutral decisions don't fare any better... actually they fare worse (and are lumped with the Renegade outcome in ME1/2).

Putting the entire galaxy above a few replaceable top brass is hardly a "jerk" move.  If the entire galaxy was destroyed... the top brass you would try to save would be dead too.  (This is in reference to the Neutral Council decision in ME1).

If you look at the Renegade result, ME1 ended in a very Renegade way... but was essentially castrated in ME2.  Where was the all-human Council?  What happened to the "dark alliance" made at the end of the first game?  Heck, where was the increased human dominance presence?  Where was the increased human dominance percs?  It's a break in story continuity and cut content for not seeing the Council (the only group that Shepard answers to... doesn't make sense).

For Neutrals, you pick the chairman who heads the Council, and not even the chairman can get them in front of Skype to hear what happened to the "hero of the Citadel, thought dead for years, and now back with rumors of Cerberus circulating around his name."

Again, the issue is Favoritism.  Paragon doesn't have those issues at all, the story transition is the smoothest there compared to all the other choices.

That's also just the tip of the Favoritism iceburg.

If it was favoritism I would expect that paragons get something renegades don't. That the renegade/neutral decision was handled unsatisfactory is one thing. But why are paragons better off? We were made to work with Cerberus, despite the fact that we don't like them, don't trust them and think of them terrorists. We don't get to see much of our saved council either. They don't do anything for us aside from reinstating us as a spectre and let us work for cerberus in the terminus system. Same that you get as a renegade. Where are we better off?

Of the choices I made in ME1, which one gives me anything that renegades don't get in ME2? I never played a renegade playthrough, so you need to help me out here. I always thought all our choices are mostly irrelevant. Which means that Bio disappointed all of us. But where is the favoritism if we all get the same thing.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 25 décembre 2011 - 09:52 .

[AVPen]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Collector Base Decision:

Paragon Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You blow it up.  TIM's upset and Jacob tells you that Cerberus will be coming after you now.  Your whole squad agrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice). In ME3, Cerberus is after you (but Jacob already told you that).

Renegade Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You keep it.  TIM's happy.  Your whole squad disagrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice).  In ME3, Cerberus is after you (wait... wut?)

And a player would know this plot-point for a future game at the end of finishing ME2...... Because???

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
See a pattern forming here?

Yes, but it's not the pattern that you think you're seeing. 

Modifié par AVPen, 25 décembre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AVPen wrote...
But getting his loyalty is not a guarantee with taking the Paragon path (unlike the Renagade path), which is what you're arguing about like saving the factory workers will automatically earns Zaeed's loyalty regardless if you kill Vido or not . It's a possibility, not an actuality. 

Wrong, it is a gaurantee. The last choice you pick that's Paragon is "You brought this on yourself"... which is the choice that has Shepard freeing Zaaeed and gaining his loyalty.

He "hasn't done anything" that you know of, which is entirely my point.... just because something isn't reported in-game on the Galactic News broadcast does not mean that events are or are not occuring in the ME universe. Considering an individal as dangerous as Balak has shown himself to be as 'harmless' just because you haven't heard from/about them in a while? That's just absurd. <_<

Not in a game narrative... if he was a problem, they'd say he was a problem.  Plus, Balak is "reported" to still be at large... so if he'd done anything, they'd likely report that too.  Fact is... there's just been nothing to report.

What can be reported?  The dead hostages from the Renegade choice.  See the problem?  Which presents the better upside?  Zero reported casualties or the dead hostages?  It's not hard.

If Paragon wasn't so favored... perhaps Balak would've been written in as more active.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AVPen wrote...
And a player would know this plot-point for a future game at the end of finishing ME2...... Because???

And you feel that the player's mindset has to do with Bioware's favoritism of Paragon decisions... Because???

Yes, but it's not the pattern that you think you're seeing. 

Let it cook some more then.  The issue is Paragon favoritism (just to remind you)...

[CroGamer002]

Arcian wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

LeVaughnX wrote...And I think Jennifer Hale is an emotionless retard but I don't hate anyone who likes her either.

Hale's powerful and emotional performance is FAR better than Meer's emotionless and dull performance.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that both are equally good.

Deal with it. 

Much better.

[Labrev]

Aumata wrote...

What the hell is a "real" renegades?

An individual who has strong reasoning for what he/she does, and stands firmly behind it in the face of criticism (or really, ANYTHING that stands in their way) because they believe in their convictions.


Case in point: ME2 turian shopkeeper, Council Sacrificed.

Paragon: Sowwy! =,(
Renegade: Damn right the council died, that's because humanity saved your sorry-ass. Now bend over backwards and give me a discount! >=D

A fake renegade takes the Intimidate because, that's what they do, pretend to be renegade. But, deep down, they are hurting by the meanie shopkeeper that insulted them. So they come crawling to this site and complain about how unfairly the game treated them.

That's playing renegade with a paragon heart, it's how most of the renegades on this site seem to play the game. Therefore, as I said, not real renegades. They just play one on M.E.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...
If it was favoritism I would expect that paragons get something renegades don't. That the renegade/neutral decision was handled unsatisfactory is one thing. But why are paragons better off?

For the Neutral Council decision, sacrificing the Council to stop Sovereign was unnecessary.  Sovereign would've waited for you (there was no rush to stop him).  For a Council Chairman, Anderson has less negotiating power (in the Neutral/Renegade import) than he does being just a member of the Council (in the Paragon import).  The story itself has a weaker transition between games (while the Paragon story stays essentially consistent).

Ultimately, it meas Bioware concentrated on Paragon outcomes and made the Renegade/Neutral outcomes an afterthought or lumped it together with "New player profiles"... during which point they cut almost anything deemed unnecessary for a new player.
 

We were made to work with Cerberus, despite the fact that we don't like them, don't trust them and think of them terrorists. We don't get to see much of our saved council either. They don't do anything for us aside from reinstating us as a spectre and let us work for cerberus in the terminus system. Same that you get as a renegade. Where are we better off?

Paragons and Renegades are made to work with Cerberus, Neither side particularly wanted to work with them... and neither side completely trusts them.  For the council decision, Paragons are better off by getting to actually see them again while also receiving their blessing.  Renegades/Neutrals don't see them (which just doesn't much sense given the circumstances and who Shepard is) and have their Spectre status snuck back in.

Of the choices I made in ME1, which one gives me anything that renegades don't get in ME2? I never played a renegade playthrough, so you need to help me out here. I always thought all our choices are mostly irrelevant. Which means that Bio disappointed all of us. But where is the favoritism if we all get the same thing.

There was no Renegade dominance (not even sure if the Council is all-human for them) or Neutral Council chairman... (otherwise he would've had the power to call the meeting with Shepard).  There's no positive benefit presented to the Renegade/Neutral choice for that decision (only riots, uncooperative aliens... and no human strength/percs to show for it... no up side) while the Paragon choice has more positive feedback (like that store owner), improved alien relations and an audience with their Council who gives you their blessing and backing... even out in the Terminus Systems.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 décembre 2011 - 10:21 .

[AlexXIV]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Aumata wrote...

What the hell is a "real" renegades?

An individual who has strong reasoning for what he/she does, and stands firmly behind it in the face of criticism (or really, ANYTHING that stands in their way) because they believe in their convictions.


Case in point: ME2 turian shopkeeper, Council Sacrificed.

Paragon: Sowwy! =,(
Renegade: Damn right the council died, that's because humanity saved your sorry-ass. Now bend over backwards and give me a discount! >=D

A fake renegade takes the Intimidate because, that's what they do, pretend to be renegade. But, deep down, they are hurting by the meanie shopkeeper that insulted them. So they come crawling to this site and complain about how unfairly the game treated them.

That's playing renegade with a paragon heart, it's how most of the renegades on this site seem to play the game. Therefore, as I said, not real renegades. They just play one on M.E.

Frankly I think it is because paragons mostly have the morale high ground. So even if a decision I make backfires I can deal with it because it doesn't hurt my Shepard. Then he made a wrong call for the right reasons. But if you kill alot of people and then it turns out it was wrong ... tough cookie to swallow. So basically all those who pick renegade choices to be 'realist' or 'practical' get this problem that they look like idiots afterwards. While Paragons can still tell themselves that they did the right thing but have gotten unlucky.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I could care less about an isolated decision's outcome and treatment... the whole point is that it's not be exclusive/one-sided.

Had Renegades seen the new Council, I would've loved to see an arguement/misunderstanding... but where's that content?

Not sure how many times I have to use the word "Favoritism"... but that's the issue... the one track outcomes when in reality, sometimes the harsher way (while less than ideal) would yield a more positive result. Shepard's attitude doesn't hinge on whether he got the best outcome or not.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 25 décembre 2011 - 10:27 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...
Frankly I think it is because paragons mostly have the morale high ground. So even if a decision I make backfires I can deal with it because it doesn't hurt my Shepard. Then he made a wrong call for the right reasons. But if you kill alot of people and then it turns out it was wrong ... tough cookie to swallow. So basically all those who pick renegade choices to be 'realist' or 'practical' get this problem that they look like idiots afterwards. While Paragons can still tell themselves that they did the right thing but have gotten unlucky.

Actually, it's because I was personally sold on the whole angle of decisions that weren't "easy."  Naturally, as the game hero, you're inclined to make the heroic choices.  This game was supposed to move away from that and present situations where the "morally ideal" choice wasn't always the best way.

Bioware has simply failed at this.  That's the contention/issue.


Don't know about you, but I like not knowing which choice yields the best results before I even hear what the choice is.

[Aumata]

AVPen wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Collector Base Decision:

Paragon Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You blow it up.  TIM's upset and Jacob tells you that Cerberus will be coming after you now.  Your whole squad agrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice). In ME3, Cerberus is after you (but Jacob already told you that).

Renegade Ending (ME2):  You're pressured by TIM to keep the base, some of your squadmates agree with the notion.  You keep it.  TIM's happy.  Your whole squad disagrees with your decision during the epilogue (even if they felt the exact opposite when you had to make the choice).  In ME3, Cerberus is after you (wait... wut?)

And a player would know this plot-point for a future game at the end of finishing ME2...... Because???

If you are talking about metagaming ME2 choices as metagaming being invalid to make a point of Bioware favoring one side is BS, as it is denying the problem.  Mass Effect 3 info starts off with several decisons being invalid:

• Fight the rachni even if the queen is dead.
• Cerberus gets the base through salvage if destroyed thus making the base minor in general, or actually be an important asset
• Udina gets a council seat if you give it to Anderson
• Cerberus after you, no matter if you gave them the base.
• Thanks to the beta demo of surkesh it is possible that we cure the genophage, thanks to conviently cured females.

While this info shows that things that were big in the previous games, get turn to minor things making me wonder what the hell was the purpose of choices if they are leading to the same action with the possiblity of one side gaining the advantage.  I want my choices (major ones) from the last two games to impact Mass Effect, and have Pros and Cons to them.  If new players jumps in just do what DA2 for new comers, create 4 outcomes Paragon, Paragade, Renegon, and Renegade jumping point.  Each beginning comes with different Squadmates death and big choices while keeping the story of the neutral.  So Mass Effect 3 gets to have major choices effect it from the last two games, and still have things major choices in Mass Effect 3 effect the ending.  This is what shouldf have happen for ME3.

[Labrev]

AlexXIV wrote...

Frankly I think it is because paragons mostly have the morale high ground. So even if a decision I make backfires I can deal with it because it doesn't hurt my Shepard. Then he made a wrong call for the right reasons. But if you kill alot of people and then it turns out it was wrong ... tough cookie to swallow. So basically all those who pick renegade choices to be 'realist' or 'practical' get this problem that they look like idiots afterwards. While Paragons can still tell themselves that they did the right thing but have gotten unlucky.

Decisions are morally-grey, there's no "right" or "wrong" way to deal with them, just two very different methods. Both are, usually, justified in their own right. There are times when a Renegade character will be unnecessarily thuggish. On the flip side, there are times when a Paragon character makes himself look like an embarassingly naiive fool. Both have their pros and cons.

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
If it was favoritism I would expect that paragons get something renegades don't. That the renegade/neutral decision was handled unsatisfactory is one thing. But why are paragons better off?

For the Neutral Council decision, sacrificing the Council to stop Sovereign was unnecessary.  Sovereign would've waited for you (there was no rush to stop him).  For a Council Chairman, Anderson has less negotiating power (in the Neutral/Renegade import) than he does being just a member of the Council (in the Paragon import).  The story itself has a weaker transition between games (while the Paragon story stays essentially consistent).

Ultimately, it meas Bioware concentrated on Paragon outcomes and made the Renegade/Neutral outcomes an afterthought or lumped it together with "New player profiles"... during which point they cut almost anything deemed unnecessary for a new player.
 

We were made to work with Cerberus, despite the fact that we don't like them, don't trust them and think of them terrorists. We don't get to see much of our saved council either. They don't do anything for us aside from reinstating us as a spectre and let us work for cerberus in the terminus system. Same that you get as a renegade. Where are we better off?

Paragons and Renegades are made to work with Cerberus, Neither side particularly wanted to work with them... and neither side completely trusts them.  For the council decision, Paragons are better off by getting to actually see them again while also receiving their blessing.  Renegades/Neutrals don't see them (which just doesn't much sense given the circumstances and who Shepard is) and have their Spectre status snuck back in.

Of the choices I made in ME1, which one gives me anything that renegades don't get in ME2? I never played a renegade playthrough, so you need to help me out here. I always thought all our choices are mostly irrelevant. Which means that Bio disappointed all of us. But where is the favoritism if we all get the same thing.

There was no Renegade dominance (not even sure if the Council is all-human for them) or Neutral Council chairman... (otherwise he would've had the power to call the meeting with Shepard).  There's no positive benefit presented to the Renegade/Neutral choice for that decision (only riots, uncooperative aliens... and no human strength/percs to show for it... no up side) while the Paragon choice has more positive feedback (like that store owner), improved alien relations and an audience with their Council who gives you their blessing and backing... even out in the Terminus Systems.

Well you can't get cameos if you let people die or kill them. That's the same for everyone. And the things you list in favor of paragons are just ... minor. A couple of cameos and some lines are more positive. So ... does it really make the same sense for paragon and renegade to work with Cerberus as you put it? I doubt it. Renegades break laws all the time. They cross lines, disregard morals. That's alot closer to Cerberus than Paragons.

So I have to disagree in this point. Not sure if you played paragon and with how much heart, but the whole Cerberus plot was a huge letdown for me. Luckily I liked the new companions well enough to make up for that. But reporting to TIM and working for TIM was a slap in the face for me. I don't know about other Paragons, but if I didn't get to blow up the base in the end ... I'd feel completely disconnected from my ME1 Shepard. I do everything possible to hurt Cerberus and help the Alliance in the game desperate to cling to what my ME1 Shepard was.

So excuse me if I say as an anti-cerberus paragon that I can't understand why renegades complain about ME2 because to me it was written for renegades. And if anyone has real reason to complain it's us paragons who were forced to work with terrorists which is completely anti-paragon. Paragons don't make compromises like this. When I met Kaiden/Ashley on Horizons I could understand their position better than my Shep's. I would have liked to answer 'I know Cerberus is bad, but the plot doesn't let me go with you back to the Alliance!'. Trust me, Paragons didn't get more than Renegades. Maybe we got more small things to make up for the Cerberus main plot, but it was less than satisfactory for us as well.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well you can't get cameos if you let people die or kill them. That's the same for everyone.

Hence why I don't talk about the old Council and instead refer to the new Council that was talked about at the end of ME1 (and existed to some capacity in ME2).
 

And the things you list in favor of paragons are just ... minor. A couple of cameos and some lines are more positive. So ... does it really make the same sense for paragon and renegade to work with Cerberus as you put it? I doubt it. Renegades break laws all the time. They cross lines, disregard morals. That's alot closer to Cerberus than Paragons.

All Shepards cross lines and break laws.  All Shepards steal the Normandy and kill a heck of a lot of Batarians.  Spectres are above the law... they have the license to break them... no matter which moral side you stand on.

So I have to disagree in this point. Not sure if you played paragon and with how much heart, but the whole Cerberus plot was a huge letdown for me. Luckily I liked the new companions well enough to make up for that. But reporting to TIM and working for TIM was a slap in the face for me. I don't know about other Paragons, but if I didn't get to blow up the base in the end ... I'd feel completely disconnected from my ME1 Shepard. I do everything possible to hurt Cerberus and help the Alliance in the game desperate to cling to what my ME1 Shepard was.

My debates regarding this issue does make it sound like I'm a Renegade... I'm not.  I'm a Paragde (with a vast amount of it coming from the Paragon side).  Regardless of who you are, Cerberus is never considered a 100% safe group to work alongside with.

So excuse me if I say as an anti-cerberus paragon that I can't understand why renegades complain about ME2 because to me it was written for renegades. And if anyone has real reason to complain it's us paragons who were forced to work with terrorists which is completely anti-paragon. Paragons don't make compromises like this. When I met Kaiden/Ashley on Horizons I could understand their position better than my Shep's. I would have liked to answer 'I know Cerberus is bad, but the plot doesn't let me go with you back to the Alliance!'. Trust me, Paragons didn't get more than Renegades. Maybe we got more small things to make up for the Cerberus main plot, but it was less than satisfactory for us as well.

ME2 wasn't written for Renegades, hardly.  No Renegade choice brought Cerberus into the plot (no Paragon choice either).  The issue is Paragon favoritism, not whether or not you like Cerberus.

And your entire crew disapproves of your "keep the base" decision... even those who wanted to keep it during the time of the decision... how's that "Pro-Renegade"?