4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Saaziel]

So let me get this straight, Those who'd force a dark grim ending , because real life isn't fair, would also like to have the same number of cameo & e mails ... otherwise that wouldn't be fair. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk , hilarious.

As for the topic: I like my tragedies, i hate the "And they lived happily ever after" . That said i have no qualm about having a Uber good and Uber bad ending in the game.

Modifié par Saaziel, 09 octobre 2011 - 11:48 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

"Renegade's feeling punished" often come from the fact that people or creatures they have killed doesn't show up later.....go figure.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Luckily, Liara has no military training whatsoever, as shown in her lack of skills relating to weapons/armor in ME1. But this'd make this sort of scenario difficult to implement.

In that case, the character can simply be the Virmire Survivor or Vega. I'm doubting Liara, Jack and Thane would be involved in anything military for example. For those who've romanced them, you'd face a similar situation somewhere else but maybe playing out differently.

[Dave of Canada]

Saaziel wrote...

So let me get this straight, Those who'd force a dark grim ending , because real life isn't fair, would also like to have the same number of cameo & e mails ... otherwise that wouldn't be fair. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk , hilarious. 

I don't see your point.

Dark and grim has nothing to do with nobody mentioning your decision. If I killed somebody, people can point out I just killed somebody. It doesn't change anything with "dark and grim" when nobody mentions it, last time I checked?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 octobre 2011 - 11:52 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dave of Canada wrote...

To try and make it ontopic, quoting my last post which was ignored! :-P

Okay, Dave, I'll love you.

I like that idea, but taking in the whole fleet instead of just one team seems a bit silly.  Even I wouldn't bring down the Fifth Fleet for mai space husbando.

I think it would be more logical to just go back yourself, maybe with the Normandy and crew.  While you're gone, however, bad sh*t happens and it all goes to hell.  If you were there, you could have maybe stopped it, and the fleet wouldn't have taken so much damage, the dreadnoughts wouldn't have been disabled, and Hackett would be alive.

If you don't go back for your LI, the attack on the fleet still happens, but since you're there and you're Shepard, you can halt the attack and save most of the fleet, but your LI bites it.

Much more realistic that way.  Shepard doesn't go all derpy, but serious damage happens because (s)he took an unnecessary risk and didn't forsee the consequences.

[KotorEffect3]

GodWood wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...
What you would call blind idealism and naivety I would call having a sense of honor

lol

and and having the foresight not to alienate potential allies.

Metagaming is not foresight. 

And I fail to see how renegades have been "punished" other than missing a few cameos and emails.

Less content and recognition is a punishment.

But there's also the human led Council's hate for Shepard, his loss of his Spectre status...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Seriously, wrong thread, bro.

Soz

Considering that ME 3 doesn't come out until March you can't call it metagaming.  And less content?  what less content?  I don't remember getting any extra mission or quests because I picked the paragon route.

As far as the councils go neither coucil likes Shepard and the saved council still throws airquotes at Shepard and you can still get your spectre status with a new council as long as Anderson in councilor.  So that is a weak thing to whine about.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saaziel wrote...

So let me get this straight, Those who'd force a dark grim ending , because real life isn't fair, would also like to have the same number of cameo & e mails ... otherwise that wouldn't be fair. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk , hilarious.

Who wants what kind of endings available has little bearing on their in-game morality.

[Killjoy Cutter]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

To try and make it ontopic, quoting my last post which was ignored! :-P

Okay, Dave, I'll love you.

I like that idea, but taking in the whole fleet instead of just one team seems a bit silly.  Even I wouldn't bring down the Fifth Fleet for mai space husbando.

I think it would be more logical to just go back yourself, maybe with the Normandy and crew.  While you're gone, however, bad sh*t happens and it all goes to hell.  If you were there, you could have maybe stopped it, and the fleet wouldn't have taken so much damage, the dreadnoughts wouldn't have been disabled, and Hackett would be alive.

If you don't go back for your LI, the attack on the fleet still happens, but since you're there and you're Shepard, you can halt the attack and save most of the fleet, but your LI bites it.

Much more realistic that way.  Shepard doesn't go all derpy, but serious damage happens because (s)he took an unnecessary risk and didn't forsee the consequences.

And that's gets to one of the things that concerns me -- drama and such in modern fiction is all too often formulaic, created by blatant and inexplicable out-of-character derpness on the part of one or more characters. 

[GodWood]

I already soz'd Cheez.
Save the derping for when another "Paragon Favouritism" thread pops up.

[Kaiser_Wilhelm]

I like the idealistic plot of saving your entire squad. However, it's far too easy. In ME2, all you have to do is buy a few upgrades and complete a few missions and no one dies. I'd prefer a difficult "No man left behind"-style mission to save everyone.

Modifié par Kaiser_Wilhelm, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:01 .

[Xilizhra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

So let me get this straight, Those who'd force a dark grim ending , because real life isn't fair, would also like to have the same number of cameo & e mails ... otherwise that wouldn't be fair. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk , hilarious.

Who wants what kind of endings available has little bearing on their in-game morality.

Eh. The correlation is pretty strong.

[KotorEffect3]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

So let me get this straight, Those who'd force a dark grim ending , because real life isn't fair, would also like to have the same number of cameo & e mails ... otherwise that wouldn't be fair. Talks the talk but can't walk the walk , hilarious. 

I don't see your point.

Dark and grim has nothing to do with nobody mentioning your decision. If I killed somebody, people can point out I just killed somebody. It doesn't change anything with "dark and grim" when nobody mentions it, last time I checked?

Listen to new reports, talk to the citadel VI, talk to the turian shopkeeper, talk to bailey, talk to shiala or the feros colonist (if you were a dick and executed shiala), wreave, anderson etc... They all ackhowledge renegade decisions.  So stop whining about how you renegades never get to hear about your decisions. 

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

Eh. The correlation is pretty strong.

Nah.  The ones who tie player morality into everything are just very outspoken.

[sponge56]

Dave of Canada wrote...


I don't see your point.

Dark and grim has nothing to do with nobody mentioning your decision. If I killed somebody, people can point out I just killed somebody. It doesn't change anything with "dark and grim" when nobody mentions it, last time I checked?

But if you killed them no-one would really know about them, therefore how could they be referenced.  If Renegade Shepard were real they probaly wouldnt even remember shiala's name after killing them 2 years before

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Eh. The correlation is pretty strong.

Nah.  The ones who tie player morality into everything are just very outspoken.

The only thing I can say about it is that the game encourages extremes of morality, which is probably what causes half of these arguments as players try to justify the choices/

[Killjoy Cutter]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

LoL @ slaughtering the Ferros colonists in the name of "duty and logic". 

Colonists have been infected with an alien disease which might or might not be cured upon killing the infector, do you kill them or do you knock them out and hope they wake up okay?

*shoots them dead*

Renegade rationalization always cracks me up.

Suppose that's one thing Paragon aren't capable of, rationalising, at least not beyond "that's the blue option, so I'll choose that".

As for Feros, I personally didn't kill anyone there, but I do want that to bite me in the ass.

Nashiktal wrote...
The only thing I can say about it is that the game encourages extremes of morality, which is probably what causes half of these arguments as players try to justify the choices/

Actually, the first thing I do in a new playthrough is use the "dev console" in ME1, or Gibbed's in ME2, to set the "personality metrics" high enough that I can ignore them, stop metagaming, and play the particular version of Shep I'm actually trying to play.  I lean towards the "blue choice" on most of the Sheps, but that's because I don't see the damn point of about 75% of the "red choices" 


Anyway, to get this somewhat back on topic, what I really do not understand at all, Kaiser, is your "I do want that to bite me in the ass" statement.  Why on earth would you want it to bite you in the ass? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:07 .

[GodWood]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Anyway, to get this somewhat back on topic, what I really do not understand at all is your "I want that to bite me in the ass" statement.  Why on earth would you want it to bite you in the ass? 

For me?
Desire for drama + Desire for 'realism' + masochism.

[Saaziel]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dark and grim has nothing to do with nobody mentioning your decision. If I killed somebody, people can point out I just killed somebody. It doesn't change anything with "dark and grim" when nobody mentions it, last time I checked?

The general argument made is that real life isn't fair and you shouldn't be able to save everyone simply because you want to. That would take away from "realism" . And of course if the people (Real or fictional) that you care for die , it would be a Dark / Grim setting . Not that it is the only way to make it Dark and grim , but it is the easiest in my opinion.

What appears to be the same group of people that would argue the statement above also use the "Fairness" or "Equality" argument when P & R  discussions are made.

If real life isn't fair , and this game is part of real life ; It follows that the result of playing this game isn't necessarily going to be fair. Resulst that would pertain to a Renegade or Paragon choices for example.

Its a question of having a taste of your own medicine ;If your argument is " life isn't fair" , then the same could be said about P&R decisions.

If its not your argument , then by all means ignore my post. I'm not going to go through 30 some pages for an internet debate. I'm merely speaking in general terms.

Modifié par Saaziel, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:22 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't see why you're laughing at the rationalization when it's confirmed to be a problem in ME2.

Becauses Killjoy's in a derpy mood today (no offense bro).  I certainly don't feel that way, and I'm much more inclined to be paragon than renegade.

All that's confirmed in ME2 is that being infested by telepathic spores has lingering effects on the health of the colonists. 

And I'm always in this mood, it's who I am.  I have zero tolerance for some things (such as people who claim that there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't agree with them or doesn't do things their way).

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:17 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Anyway, to get this somewhat back on topic, what I really do not understand at all, Kaiser, is your "I do want that to bite me in the ass" statement.  Why on earth would you want it to bite you in the ass?

What Godwood said, plus extra content.

[Asenza]

I want to be able to save as many people as I can because death is handled so badly in the Mass Effect series.

Wrex dead? Move on. Ashley or Kaiden? A single conversation after Virmire (your other crew mates make mention of it), then one line of dialogue in ME2 and a news announcement. Any of your squad dying during the SM? Even the LI? Shepard walks it off, has a moment with the caskets back on the Normandy, and that's all she wrote.

If for instance, Jack died early on in ME3, I don't want my Jared Shepard to just pretend she never existed. If squadmate or other character deaths of people close to Shepard can't be handled properly and given the weight that is their due, then no, not even in the name of realism, out in a blaze of glory or well-he-was-going-to-die anyway, should a character die.

If the squadmates or other characters die just for the sake of "epicness", "depth" or +10 realism points, then they died for the wrong reasons. That's emotional manipulation, that's killing a kitten in front of it's ten year old owner, then telling her that her parents are dead and then strangling child right after. Of course you'd feel sorry about it.

It's a lot easier to kill characters and end their story than it is to let them live and grow and change and learn. Killing characters is (usually) a cheap way to close a door.

The Virmire decision "good" in the sense that you were given a choice as to which person you saved, but that didn't eclipse the fact that the decision shouldn't have had to have been made to begin with. What the heck were Garrus, Wrex, Tali and Liara doing that they couldn't run to the other team and give them some back up? Where the heck was the Normandy? If I can see clear alternatives to avoiding the death in the life or death situation, then it fails.

AdmiralCheez, will you marry me? First your sense on that wretched Morinth thread, now that beautiful first post.

Modifié par Asenza, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:16 .

[Someone With Mass]

Just for the record, Tali mentions both Virmire and Feros in the same dialogue sequence, both based on the player's choice.

So there's no absolute shutout on the talking front when it comes to Virmire and Feros.

[Medhia Nox]

@Saphra Deden - did you also hate the LoTR novels?

Your proposed concept for Feros is interesting - but fails only because you're writing a story, not playing a roleplaying game. Your insistence that the colonists cannot be saved is railroading and attempting to proselytize others into your world view.

Occasionally having situations where the "grim dark" choice is inevitable - can be powerful storytelling, but only if you show that you're wise enough (as a storyteller) to know that sometimes the good guys really can win the day and everything can be bright and sunny and awesome.

Otherwise - the audience will feel that you're preaching and pushing your agenda.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That's not my main problem. I can't kill the rachni queen, I can't kill the Feros colonists, I can't kill the Council...

I really don't understand the outright visceral glee that some people derive from taking the "bloody" path on decisions like those. 

Killing the Feros colonists enhances Fai Dan's death by giving it a bit more weight and drama. It also makes more sense why Shepard would let him kill himself instead of tagging him with a knockout gas grenade.

I also like some of the dialogue you get from Shiala on Ilium if you killed the colonists. Tali's "I watched you" speech is also structured better.

So yes, I killed those people for Tali.

At least you did it for the right reason. 

Saphra Deden wrote...

(also the rationale is more that you don't know how effective the grenades will be, which could be dangerous. Suppose the paralysis wears off and the colonists bum rush your team while you are fighting the Thorian?)

This is a case where I think they should have forced this outcome. Shepard's choice there would determine his reputation. If he kills the colonists outright he is seen by some as the Butcher of Feros because they say he didn't even try to save them. If he uses the gas grenades he has to kill the colonists later anyway during the Thorian fight, but all witnesses to the battle know that Shepard did everything possible so he's seen more favorably.

I could live with that, even though it would kinda suck, and despite knowing that it would happen as a player, most of my Sheps would still try knockout-gassing the colonists first.