1667 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
The intensity you have when you defend the Renegade standpoint is so strong that it implys these things. So if you are a good person in real life what is it that makes you love the Renegade soo much? Is it just the fantasy of being bad with no reprocussions?

Listen I DO NOT WANT YOUR GAME TO EXPLODE FOR PICKING RENEGADE... just for you to get the ending you want allong with the entire galaxy hating you for being a douche.

For myself is because a lot of renegade choices are a lot SMARTER than paragon ones. Sure, there are paragon choices that I find better..and sure, the lesser renegade choices are douchbaggery. Which is why a renegade is so inconsistent.

At the end of the day, pragmatists should be rewarded for some of their choices and idealists punished. Why? Because it's a friggin galactic war of extinction and not bloody Care Bear Happy Land.
There's a time and place for everything and blind idealism should get a few smacks in such an enviroment.

[rockman0]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
The intensity you have when you defend the Renegade standpoint is so strong that it implys these things. So if you are a good person in real life what is it that makes you love the Renegade soo much? Is it just the fantasy of being bad with no reprocussions?

Listen I DO NOT WANT YOUR GAME TO EXPLODE FOR PICKING RENEGADE... just for you to get the ending you want allong with the entire galaxy hating you for being a douche.

For myself is because a lot of renegade choices are a lot SMARTER than paragon ones. Sure, there are paragon choices that I find better..and sure, the lesser renegade choices are douchbaggery. Which is why a renegade is so inconsistent.

This is why I don't play from a certain moral standpoint on my main character. I pick whichever option I see fit. Sometimes, it's a Renegade option. Sometimes, it's a Paragon option.

[ultimatekotorfan]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I do have realistic goals. That's why I am so cynical.

Sucks to be so pessimistic, then.

A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I didn't keep score, but I'd say I'm 80% paragon and 20% renegade (but that's mostly because the lesser renegade choices are not worth taking at all. They are downright stupid).

I go after options that have the best chance at securing the survival of the galaxy.Shep is military. A survivor. Hence why I try to choose the most tacticly sound choices.

Unfortunately Bioware went nowhere with them so far.

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Oh, so you did keep the base. So why are we having this conversation?

Oh the mental gymnastics on this one.  I conquered that base, not TIM, take a guess who that belongs to now.  No one said anything about TIM getting access to all of my resources.

Saphrawhatsisface wrote...

Though I want to know something. If TIM is so eager to get rid of Shepard at the first opporunity then why did he pay a fortune to bring him back from the land of the dead?

For someone who consistantly challenges the legitamcy of the plot, that is an odd question to ask.  Space Jesus gets no pass from me for good writing.  Plausible, perhaps, but good is far from settled.  Lets not split hairs though, instead I'll point to the fact that I said that they were allies of convenience untill the convenience ends.  It was still on at that point in the story, was it not?

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why didn't he murder Shepard in ME1 when Shepard was actively attacking Cerberus and destroying their assets?

Do you really think TIM felt Shepard was an asset or a danger at that point?  Please.  He was dealt with like any intruder, shot at a lot as he entered.  It was only after the Battle of the Citadel that Shepard turned up on TIMs radar.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Was Shepard really that critical to the suicide mission to justify spending that much money just to turn around and murder him a few months later?

Your Shepard is perhaps a lovely lap dog to be pet when good, mine turned out to be outside of TIMs control, just like everything else he meddles with without full understanding.  He certainly didn't expect his crew to turn to me instead of him, or am I missing a part of his awesome plan?

You haven't thought this through enough either, or prefer black and white crayon to a colorful pallet of responses.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Wrong. You need to do more htan stop it from making Reapers. The factory making a single Reaper this cycle was a small threat. The real threat will require knowledge to defeat and the base promises knowledge. You are not thinking rationally.

You're right, I need to stop all the Reapers.  Giving TIM a tool that makes Reapers . . . leaves the possibility that TIM will make more Reapers.  Rational thought is easier with Occams Razor than whatever Cerberus fantasy you've cooked up.  TIM has a track record of pushing projects for results outside of saftey protocols to achieve results.  I'm positive he'll succeed too, at building a Reaper, instead of coming up with something useful to fight them.

Saphra Deden wrote...

So ultimately this is all about you and not the cause. You see I'm fine with TIM being willing to sacrifice me because I think I'm expendable as long as the Reapres are stopped, as long as humanity survives and flourishes. I'm not selfish.

Are we pretending that we aren't playing a game now?  Or was your mea culpa earlier about not getting what you want somehow about the cause?

The game, my purchase, and my enjoyment of it are ultimately about me.  My Shepards are slightly more nuanced than that, and have causes they favor and would die for, chief amongst them the defeat of the Reapers and Survival of the collected races.  Things built on honor and trust amongst warriors, rather than treachery and skullduggery amongst people who lack the power to shape the world with their own hands.   You know, selfishness and all that.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Wrong. You need to do more htan stop it from making Reapers. The factory making a single Reaper this cycle was a small threat. The real threat will require knowledge to defeat and the base promises knowledge. You are not thinking rationally.

You're right, I need to stop all the Reapers.  Giving TIM a tool that makes Reapers . . . leaves the possibility that TIM will make more Reapers.  Rational thought is easier with Occams Razor than whatever Cerberus fantasy you've cooked up.  TIM has a track record of pushing projects for results outside of saftey protocols to achieve results.  I'm positive he'll succeed too, at building a Reaper, instead of coming up with something useful to fight them.

Redicolous reasoning.

A reaper shipyard is a treasure throve of technology and information.
Usefull knowledge is a GURANTEED.

You don't want to give it to TIM because it gives the POSSIBILITY that he might make his own reaper (let's compltely ignore just how redicolous that is, as not only is it contrary to Cerberus goals to create more reapers, but it would also require hunderds of thousands of humans, which CANNOT go unnoticed)

Yet, by thet logic you cannot give it to anyone - Council? Alliance? You also leave the possibility that they will build a reaper.
In other words, your logic train has only one place it can go to, only one destination - destroy the source of information that could be vital for the galactic war..

All because Cerberus is more on your mind than the reapers. And your priorities are seriously messed up, since denying Cerberus is more important than saving hte galaxy..apparently.


If Occam saw how you're using his razor, he'd use it to slit his wrists.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:19 .

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I didn't keep score, but I'd say I'm 80% paragon and 20% renegade (but that's mostly because the lesser renegade choices are not worth taking at all. They are downright stupid).

I go after options that have the best chance at securing the survival of the galaxy.Shep is military. A survivor. Hence why I try to choose the most tacticly sound choices.

Unfortunately Bioware went nowhere with them so far.

It would appear you're not so tactically sound as you might think.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I didn't keep score, but I'd say I'm 80% paragon and 20% renegade (but that's mostly because the lesser renegade choices are not worth taking at all. They are downright stupid).

I go after options that have the best chance at securing the survival of the galaxy.Shep is military. A survivor. Hence why I try to choose the most tacticly sound choices.

Unfortunately Bioware went nowhere with them so far.

It would appear you're not so tactically sound as you might think.

The validity of a choice - or should I say the strategic/tactical value - is determined by the avilable facts, the desired goals, and extrapolating the most likely/best course of action to get to that goal.

Asspulls, retcons and things that cannot be predicted or are unlikely to happen do not factor in, since they are not quantifiable.

In the case of the Collector Base, saving it IS a sound decision, based on availalbe data.

This where the subject ends. What happens after is going into the "general after the battle territory".


If you want a secnario, try this:
You're go i na vase and find a dungeon. You go in and hte doors slam shut. There's a monster there and remains of many other unfortunate souls.
There's a master-crafted blade lying on the floor near you. All you got on you is a stick. Now, would you say going for the blade is the smart thing to do?

Spoiler

the blade was curesed and your soul is dragged into hell! HA! You STUPID, STUPID MAN!!!

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Asspulls, retcons and things that cannot be predicted or are unlikely to happen do not factor in, since they are not quantifiable.

A bad craftsman always blames his tools. Or in this case, the game.

[Gespenst]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"De gustum non discutabilis" ... or something like that.

De gustibus aut bene, aut nihil

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redicolous reasoning.

A reaper shipyard is a treasure throve of technology and information.
Usefull knowledge is a GURANTEED.

Nothing is guaranteed but indoctrination and taxes.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You don't want to give it to TIM because it gives the POSSIBILITY that he might make his own reaper (let's compltely ignore just how redicolous that is, as not only is it contrary to Cerberus goals to create more reapers, but it would also require hunderds of thousands of humans, which CANNOT go unnoticed)

Silly me, I assumed that when TIM said he would do anything to ensure human dominance in the galaxy he meant it.

[DiebytheSword]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Wrong. You need to do more htan stop it from making Reapers. The factory making a single Reaper this cycle was a small threat. The real threat will require knowledge to defeat and the base promises knowledge. You are not thinking rationally.

You're right, I need to stop all the Reapers.  Giving TIM a tool that makes Reapers . . . leaves the possibility that TIM will make more Reapers.  Rational thought is easier with Occams Razor than whatever Cerberus fantasy you've cooked up.  TIM has a track record of pushing projects for results outside of saftey protocols to achieve results.  I'm positive he'll succeed too, at building a Reaper, instead of coming up with something useful to fight them.

REdicolous reasoning.

A reaper shipyard is a treasure throve of technology and information.
Usefull knowledge is a GURANTEED.

You don't want to give it to TIM because it gives the POSSIBILITY that he might make his own reaper (let's compltely ignore just how redicolous that is, as not is it contrary to Cerberus goals to create more, but it would also require hunderds of thousands of humans, whihc CANNOT go unnoticed)

Yet, by thet logic you cannot give it to anyone - Council? Alliance? You also leave the possibility that they will build a reaper.
In other words, your logic train has only one place it can go to, only one destination - destroy the source of information that could be vital for the galactic war..

All because Cerberus is more on your mind than the reapers. And your priorities are seriously messed up, since denying Cerberus is more important than saving hte galaxy..apparently.


If Occam saw how you're using his razor, he'd use it to slit his wrists.

No, it is not a possiblity, it is an eventuality.  If you can't see that, then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

You are right about my option, constrained by the plot's false dichotomy I would have to destroy the base, one of many things I might do differently than allowed by black and white, something I agree with Saph on, for very different reasons.

As I said, Reapers are on the forefront of my mind, there is no garauntee that the reapers can't retake that shipyard and resume operations themselves, but that is unlikely to happen immediately.  TIM is obviously not a moron as some people like to paint him.  It is also unlikely that TIM would build a new reaper, instead building their shock troops, or his imitation of them.  Its also not soley TIM I am concerned with, that technology has no place in the technological singularity I wish to build.  Turian, Salarian, Asari, Krogan, no one has the wisdom to weild that power properly.

I don't want to give it to anyone, or was I somehow not clear on that point?  The base is mine.  I suffer its existance and decide its fate alone.

Our breakdown in understanding probably lies in the fact that the Reapers are not unbeatable no matter how badly some people want them to be.  They can and will be defeated, or there would be no point to the game.  If you say I limit my options when destroying the base, why is it then that you are not limiting yours by chosing the other side of the false dichotomy?  Obviously there will be other choices down the line, regardless of our black and white connundrum, that will decide how things play out.

So yes, I can readily admit that a Reaper shipyard is a treasure trove of information.  But I can also see that it is information that is likely to be abused, kept hidden from others, and generally used in ways anethema to my goals and chosen course.  The question is can you garauntee that the existence of a Reaper factory will not create more Reapers or their troops? 

You cannot.  No more so than I can garuntee that saving the Destiny Ascention will pay dividends and that I'll be able to defeat Sovereign after I save her.  It is a renegade gamble.  The Collector Base is both a boon and a liability and you are a fool to believe otherwise.

Pragmatics . . . I'm not so sure that you aren't dogmatics.  But by all means, apply pragmaticism as you see fit and flip-flop when it suits you and benefits the cause.

[Aeowyn]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...

The only person I wish bad things upon NIGHTLY is Aeowyn.... trust me I have very good reasons for doing so.... me and Aeowyn do not have a good history. The past is all f***ed up between us.

.

Do I know you?

Modifié par Aeowyn, 02 décembre 2011 - 08:58 .

[AlexMBrennan]

A reaper shipyard is a treasure throve of technology and information.
Usefull knowledge is a GURANTEED.

If and only if it is a Reaper shipyard - by the way,I can prove that I'm the pope if and only if 1+1=1.

Generally, I prefer plans that don't require the Reapers to be bloody stupid; and leaving an IFF lying around and the Collector base virtually undefended are bloody stupid (Would you expect an MIA serviceman's credit card to work 200 years later? Of course not.)
If it's too good to be true then it's probably a trap; of course, since this is a game - which won't Shepard from concluding that it's a trap - BW being lazy is also a possibility (we recruit random guys for most of ME2, and it conveniently turns out that we only need a few random guys to destroy the Collector base despite no one knowing anything about the Collector base until they actually get there)

[CerberusWarrior]

Someone With Mass wrote...

CerberusWarrior wrote...


I'm so thankful Bioware can not pull this crap in Star Wars TOR . no the only ones who won anything were the cry babies from 2 that all but begged Bioware to fix ME 2 well they did and nerfed any form of player choice meaning anything in the process . now ME 3 just like 1 and 2 are games with no real player choice in them at all . nothing effects the game universe. Shepard has to be aligned with the good guys like a lap dog slave in 3 . I thought Shepard was there for players to tell their Shepard's story not tell a story of Shepard that a bunch of paragon fan bots deem is the only story to tell . Screw the alliance and if hackett gets in my way in 3 well he will die like Saren did by the end of my gun

Is it really that bad if Shepard goes back to his roots? 

Shepard has been in the Alliance military his whole adult life too. It'd be pretty jarring if he showed no ill will against them before and all of the sudden hates their guts to the point that he'd kill one of their admirals (yeah, good luck getting away with that one) because they didn't give him everything he wanted and painfully reminded him that there's a real world out there, and it doesn't always go as planned and you probably can't have all the glory you deserve.

And to be completely honest, you're the one being a crybaby, because I keep seeing this over and over again in like 90% of all your posts.

   






do I care if Shepard goes back to the clowns in the alliance no because after seeing what happens to player choice why should I as a player give a dam about the so called player choice side of the story . as far as being a cry baby well hell BSN is full of whining fan groups like the babies whining over ashley's re design so that right there makes no difference to me . you just don't like that fact I totally have no interest in the alliance and will be a ass to them in 3 . further more Bioware's lame story is even laughable if ME 2 can be completely washed away from the franchise . like I said at least in Star Wars TOR they can not play this stupid game of screwing up the story . I am not worried that you do not like my comments . Metal Gear Solid may have a messed up story but at least Kojima has stayed with in the in game universe of Metal Gear Solid in all the games . 

[DiebytheSword]

Oh my. Somebody has a galactic sized ego.

There must be ego to lead, or you end up a pawn in someone else gambit.  That aside, I take that as mighty fine praise coming from someone who thinks all opposing viewpoints are invalid.

Umm... yeah, considering Shepard destroying Cerberus bases. He was certainly more of a danger than he'd be after ME2.

A fair point.  One I disagree with, but then we both have supporting arguments on that one.

Now
you are making personal attacks not arguments. Personal attacks are
fine, but have an argument too. You are trying to change subject. Why
don't you address what I said instead?

Fair enough, but this is also along the lines of the Space Jesus argument, Jack Harper is a well written character, but he is not infallable.  He resurects what he thinks will be a useful tool to the cause.  He gambles and loses on the premise that Shepard can be controlled by circumstance.  Sure, our goals align, but only in your estimation should that goal continue to align after the fall of the Reapers.  I'm not here to judge the writing, I can't control that.  Shepard is a threat to Cerberus in your own words.  Threats to Cerberus are tolerated as long as they are useful.  You intend to be useful to TIMs cause, I do not.

What would he be making Reapers for? How many? That's just not practical.

I addressed this in rebuttal to Lotion.  The fact that a shipyard exists that can create more Reapers and shocktroops thereof is reason enough for me to make sure it joins the wreckage of the galactic core.

You're no fun.

Too bad I don't exist to amuse you, but you are doing quite a fine job of amusing me.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
In the case of the Collector Base, saving it IS a sound decision, based on availalbe data.

I take issue with this because both decisions are sound, if you can't see this then perhaps there are things that you have not agreed with, but the arguments are there for both sides.

[TwistedComplex]

D3MON-SOVER3IGN wrote...

Of course because

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ALERT ALERT ALERT

Cerberus gets their hands on the technology anyway.. LOL

BiowareChoices.jpg

[DiebytheSword]

TwistedComplex wrote...

D3MON-SOVER3IGN wrote...

Of course because

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ALERT ALERT ALERT

Cerberus gets their hands on the technology anyway.. LOL

BiowareChoices.jpg

Indeed.

[jackyboy666]

Does that mean Cerberus have collector/reaper weaponry?

Oh MY!!

[someone else]

DiebytheSword wrote...

.... both decisions are sound, if you can't see this then perhaps there are things that you have not agreed with, but the arguments are there for both sides.

Exactly - BUT (a big BUT) the decision to save or trash CB is (or should have been presented as) a strategic choice, not a moral one.  BW's writing of the paragon choices always irked me - Shep comes off as a prissy, holier-than-thou scold - 'this base isa an abomination, etc.'  - the renegade choices are far more intelligently presented and persuasvie.   Paragon could have said, in essence - "Reaper tech is far too dan6gerous - I learned that on the CS - 36 million years old and still capable of indoctrination - there's nothing here that won't turn round to bite us"  i.e, the genie-in-the-bottle/pandora's box problem

That kind of a paragon choice would have been defensible, intellectually respectable, and possibly a preferable strategic option.  As it is, its an asysmetric choice between low-level emotional revulsion (para) and an intelligent rational assessment based on (RenShep's) perception of risk and rewards.

...which makes BW's apparent decision (haven't and don't want to read spoilers, but they're in the water 'round here) to vindicate the paragon path regardless all the more feckless.

Modifié par someone else, 02 décembre 2011 - 01:18 .

[Gespenst]

Well that's why I destroyed it. I don't know about anyone else. Also if you chose your dialogue options carefully (instead of automatically going to the 45 degree option) the dialogue isn't too cringeworthy.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Gespenst wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redicolous reasoning.

A reaper shipyard is a treasure throve of technology and information.
Usefull knowledge is a GURANTEED.

Nothing is guaranteed but indoctrination and taxes.

Wrong. Indoctrination is not guaranteed, but gain of knowledge is.

It is impossible to study advance tech and not gain any knowledge out of it. It always happens.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You don't want to give it to TIM because it gives the POSSIBILITY that he might make his own reaper (let's compltely ignore just how redicolous that is, as not only is it contrary to Cerberus goals to create more reapers, but it would also require hunderds of thousands of humans, which CANNOT go unnoticed)

Silly me, I assumed that when TIM said he would do anything to ensure human dominance in the galaxy he meant it.

And how would a human reaper ensure human dominance? Why would TIM even try to make one? How would he get hunderds of thousands of humans wihout the whole galaxy knowing about it?

It's not practical, smart or conductive to TIM's goals. So why would he do it?

TIM is no more likely to do it than Shep or the alliance or the Council is.

[someone else]

Gespenst wrote...

Well that's why I destroyed it. I don't know about anyone else. Also if you chose your dialogue options carefully (instead of automatically going to the 45 degree option) the dialogue isn't too cringeworthy.

...well enough, but it still leaves a huge - and up to that point - unacknowledged chasm between para and ren - if the para and ren paths had consistently drawn a line between some version of "morality" vs ruthless pragmatism that might have been in character and ok, even if weak.  As it is the para choices are typically conciliatory, consensus-building, cooperative, conversationally ingratiating, and adverse to gratuitous violence - but not obviously grounded in a "morality," or worse, driven by emotional reactions to terrible happenings or unpleasant characters.  Ren Shep tends to be more pugnacious, harsh, and on not a few occasions, mindlessly brutal.   These are not the characters we see at the CB crisis

As it is, choice completely imbalanced - para shep has a weak stomache, ren shep a clear mind. 

Modifié par someone else, 02 décembre 2011 - 01:56 .