4309 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Marionetten wrote...

This thread sure has been going places.

Anyway, I think the issue here is that by implementing the ability to save everyone and get your perfect ending you're more or less invalidating every other choice as an incorrect choice. A few pages back someone had the brilliant idea of letting us sacrifice earth in order to save all of our companions. Would you pro-life fellows be good with something like that? You can have your whole team but only if you dedicate yourself to it and give up on something else. Something arguably more important. Of course, some of them might hate your guts for it but at least they'll be alive.

That's even more forced and ridiculous.

I have repeatedly said that something similar to Virmire would be okay, if presented better this time around.

BTW, "X is alive" is just as valid as "X is dead," not more so.  Why are you treating it like a score or something?

[rapscallioness]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

"Chubby" is an adjective fine on its own, but "a chubby" is a noun used to refer to a fat woman, usually with sexual connotations.  It has the unintended consequence of reducing that woman to nothing but her body type.

Really, in what country?

If you are going to lecture Kaiser about words having different meanings in different cultures then please realizes that it goes both ways.

In my culture "chubby" implies that somebody, male or female, has some body fat. Nothing more.

Ah, well, I know that when a guy says he's got "a chubby", he's referring to an erection

[KungFuTurtle]

Haven't read much the stuff here but wow. you guys seem to have managed to ****** off that Hathur chick. That couldn't have been easy, that girl is almost always sunshine and bunnies. I miss anything good here? 168 pages is a lot of fugging crap to cut through.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Paragon = Sacrifice Squad

Renegade = Sacrifice Squad

See?  Non-choice.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I can honestly say I'm impressed.

I didn't think Saphra or Kaiser could ever get any douchier than they already were.

I was wrong.

[Marionetten]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

That's even more forced and ridiculous.

How so? It'd make sense that an overly cautious Shepard not willing to deal with any personal losses would have a harder time than a Shepard who tells Garrus to go on that risky suicide mission which might just tip the balance in humanity's favor. In desperate wars like this risks have to be taken and those brave enough to take them are remembered as heroes.

[WizenSlinky0]

Lifes an experience! We live and we learn, or we don't learn. Ya know, whatever works.

[Notlikeyoucare]

How did a discussion of squad deaths devolve into this? Lets cut the offending slurs and get back on topic.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Now that isn't very nice. Did you disagree with my characterization?

I think you're inapproperly associating playstyles with personality types again, yes.

Do you, like, thrive on intentional strawmans or something?

[Kmead15]

Marionetten wrote...

This thread sure has been going places.

Anyway, I think the issue here is that by implementing the ability to save everyone and get your perfect ending you're more or less invalidating every other choice as an incorrect choice. A few pages back someone had the brilliant idea of letting us sacrifice earth in order to save all of our companions. Would you pro-life fellows be good with something like that? You can have your whole team but only if you dedicate yourself to it and give up on something else. Something arguably more important. Of course, some of them might hate your guts for it but at least they'll be alive.

This has always been my view on it. I don't mind there being some amount of loss in the games, but too much and I just stop caring. So long as we are going to have a limited amount of loss, I have no problem with letting people choose what sort of loss they're willing to endure.

I don't think a choice where they outright say "Earth or your LI: Pick one" would be a good way to implement it, but I wouldn't mind situations that had a similar outcome. Maybe there's some optional goal that would make things better in some way, but the game warns you that trying to accomplish that goal it is not necessary and extremely risky.

[rapscallioness]

[quote]WizenSlinky0 wrote...

[quote]jeweledleah wrote...

"Maker decided it wasn't my time" Leliana

"you only thought you saw me die" Anders

be thankful that ME is not written by DA team

[/quote]

Woah, anders talks!?

Oh wait, I guess he had to do something when I left him home for every mission.

[quote]

Oh, you..yes Anders talks. He's also a great kisser...hehe. And a great healer. And a great mage....why would you leave him home?

[WizenSlinky0]

Marionetten wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

That's even more forced and ridiculous.

How so? It'd make sense that an overly cautious Shepard not willing to deal with any personal losses would have a harder time than a Shepard who tells Garrus to go on that risky suicide mission which might just tip the balance in humanity's favor. In desperate wars like this risks have to be taken and those brave enough to take them are remembered as heroes.

Eh actually, since they try to paint renegade as practical...it is practical to save the squad. Earth is primarily civilians, and doesn't really gain you much to fight the war with. Where as a paragon would probably sacrifice military assets to save said civilians, including the squad if need by.

rapscallioness wrote...


Oh, you..yes Anders talks.
He's also a great kisser...hehe. And a great healer. And a great
mage....why would you leave him home?

'Cause my idea of saying hello isn't a 10 second frencher, aha. But no, in all seriousness, I just prefered bethany as my mage. I used him a bit after they took her, but then moved on to crazy elf girl because I noticed she could make herself into a makeshift shale via stone guard.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 23 octobre 2011 - 06:17 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Marionetten wrote...

How so? It'd make sense that an overly cautious Shepard not willing to deal with any personal losses would have a harder time than a Shepard who tells Garrus to go on that risky suicide mission which might just tip the balance in humanity's favor. In desperate wars like this risks have to be taken and those brave enough to take them are remembered as heroes.

Because not taking the risk in such a situation is not an aspect of Shepard.  There was never a "let's not send someone with the salarians" or a "let's not send someone through the vents."  The game simply would not allow that sort of thing, and would not weigh the outcome on whether or not someone liked a character.

Besides, you're characterizing all the people that want to save the squad as selfish douchebags that would rather slaughter billions of people they don't know to save a handful of people they do.

[WizenSlinky0]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That depends on when this choice takes place and thus what the exact context is.

The military isn't based at Earth. Anything leftover after the initial start of the game will not be anything but civillian militia. Would you trade a militia for highly trained operatives? Not so sure I would, if I was being practical.

Guess cannon fodder?

[KungFuTurtle]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

KungFuTurtle wrote...

Haven't read much the stuff here but wow. you guys seem to have managed to ****** off that Hathur chick. That couldn't have been easy, that girl is almost always sunshine and bunnies. I miss anything good here? 168 pages is a lot of fugging crap to cut through.

Name calling, fighting, going into personal issues. Whether you consider that "anything good" is up to you.

I see. Assbaggery then. Guess I'll mosey on by then, don't want s-hit in my eye or something.