1667 réponses à ce sujet

[tetrisblock4x1]

D3MON-SOVER3IGN wrote...

Of course because

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ALERT ALERT ALERT

Cerberus gets their hands on the technology anyway.. LOL

You are correct good sir. Bioware cannot do choices on a meaningful level.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Really, sacrificing the Council to go after Sovereign brought no advantage to stopping Sovereign.  Even the Renegade ending here gets deflated in the sequel.  You don't see the new Council (at all), you don't get any privaledges for a supposed all-human dominion, and you get no praise or support from anyone that wouldn't support you regardless, the all-human Council does nothing substantial or distinctive with their new powers, and aliens are hostile/resent you (revolt could be imminent).

Besides the fact that the turians aren't feeling binded by the treaty which forbids them to produce more dreadnoughts than before.

And, really, if you gave up the largest dreadnought in Citadel space, you have no-one to blame but yourself when you're not given extra support. You pretty much put all your faith in the Arcturus fleet to take down Sovereign.

Also, had it been a tad more idealistic, that little coup wouldn't have worked at all, and I think the new Council has better things to do than to talk with Shepard.

Besides, you'll meet them in ME3.

Just because the consequences aren't showed seconds after the choice has been made doesn't mean that they don't exist.

An essentially offline dreadnaught which can be rebuilt so that it can actually defend itself next time. 

The new Council not having time for "The hero of the Citadel" Spectre (who only answers to them) in a private meeting after a long absence and a host of "unsettling" rumors makes very little sense.

And yes, I personally put my faith in the Arcturus fleet to stop Sovereign ASAP (as he was sitting by himself inside the Citadel and could summon the Reapers at virtually and literally any moment) while I put my faith in the Citadel defense force to take care of the Ascension's cries for help and the Geth's forces.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:31 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Honestly being renegade is basically about being a hardass or ****. When ever have such people been loved? I mean renegade Shep lets Clint Eastwood look like a schoolgirl. What do you expect to get for that? Applause?

Even the Sith has allies and they openly call their ways "The Dark Side."  Applause isn't necessary, but a positive impact toward their cause every once in a while would be realistic.  Sometimes being more aggressive is better than being more passive.. sometimes more lives are saved that way.  Sometimes sacrifices do get made and circumstances are not ideal.


Otherwise, the fix is in and there's no point in trying to make "the best" choice because the answer will always be "do the ideal thing and it'll always turn out the best."  There are no "hard" decisions to make in that light... removing the point of having a choice at all (for that purpose).

Bioware's been saying Renegades aren't "evil"... but they hardly provide anything in their writing and outcomes to back that notion up.

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless killing machine.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Honestly being renegade is basically about being a hardass or ****. When ever have such people been loved? I mean renegade Shep lets Clint Eastwood look like a schoolgirl. What do you expect to get for that? Applause?

Even the Sith has allies and they openly call their ways "The Dark Side."  Applause isn't necessary, but a positive impact toward their cause every once in a while would be realistic.  Sometimes being more aggressive is better than being more passive.. sometimes more lives are saved that way.  Sometimes sacrifices do get made and circumstances are not ideal.


Otherwise, the fix is in and there's no point in trying to make "the best" choice because the answer will always be "do the ideal thing and it'll always turn out the best."  There are no "hard" decisions to make in that light... removing the point of having a choice at all (for that purpose).

Bioware's been saying Renegades aren't "evil"... but they hardly provide anything in their writing and outcomes to back that notion up.

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless killing machine.

You could also argue that the Sith are simply Darwinistic and champion the theory of evolution as a lifestyle.  The strong thrive and reproduce, the weak whither and die (or are subjected to rule).

I personally don't distinguish between the choices as much.  I view most Renegade responses as the same Shepard whose patience has run out... everyone gets ticked off some time (whether they act on it is a different story).

[Someone With Mass]

Then again, I don't really care, since I'm not playing for the choices. Which I think some people have some pretty unrealistic expectation of. It's like they want the galaxy to change just because Shepard did or didn't do a specific thing and then they're complaining about how Shepard is close to being a god because of it.

Yeah...

[HiroVoid]

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade
decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good
reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to
avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so
sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for
Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be
considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile
of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to
let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless
killing machine.

So the only reason you let people live is so you look good? ....meh. Good enough for me.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:24 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, I don't really care, since I'm not playing for the choices. Which I think some people have some pretty unrealistic expectation of. It's like they want the galaxy to change just because Shepard did or didn't do a specific thing and then they're complaining about how Shepard is close to being a god because of it.

Yeah...

Can't satisfy everyone... but they can at least not favor blue choices over all of the others... given that their stated goal is to not have "easy" choices to make.

[AlexXIV]

HiroVoid wrote...

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade
decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good
reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to
avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so
sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for
Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be
considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile
of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to
let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless
killing machine.

So the only reason you let people live is so you look good? ....meh. Good enough for me.

Lol yeah I could think of worse reasons. I think as a spectre you may depend on a good reputation at times. If it is only to get a hint in an investigation.

[Ieldra]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
You could also argue that the Sith are simply Darwinistic and champion the theory of evolution as a lifestyle.  The strong thrive and reproduce, the weak whither and die (or are subjected to rule).

Grr.....*berserk button triggered*.

Social Darwinism it NOT a necessary consequence of evolution. By thinking so, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy among other things. Social Darwinism is a political ideology that attempts to justify social inequality by evolution, but you can just as easily justify more egalitarian ideologies by asserting that the human ability to co-operate widely has arisen exactly because it was advantageous for the species. Almost all human traits are the result of evolution and contribute to our species' survival. They are all "adaptive". It is dishonest to single one out, and it is fallacious to claim that just because things are a certain way in  speciation, they must also be the same in social reality.

I wouldn't have made this post if I hadn't spotted this kind of thinking in the ME3 leaked script. Whoever wrote this is promoting ignorance! As if there wasn't enough ignorance in biology around. Damn it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:41 .

[HiroVoid]

AlexXIV wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade
decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good
reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to
avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so
sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for
Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be
considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile
of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to
let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless
killing machine.

So the only reason you let people live is so you look good? ....meh. Good enough for me.

Lol yeah I could think of worse reasons. I think as a spectre you may depend on a good reputation at times. If it is only to get a hint in an investigation.

I think that's actually how the persuasion options were originally concepted to be as well.  If you're paragon, people are more likely to believe you under diplomatic circumstances while if you're renegade, people are more likely to believe you will kill them if they leave you no other options.

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Honestly being renegade is basically about being a hardass or ****. When ever have such people been loved? I mean renegade Shep lets Clint Eastwood look like a schoolgirl. What do you expect to get for that? Applause?

Even the Sith has allies and they openly call their ways "The Dark Side."  Applause isn't necessary, but a positive impact toward their cause every once in a while would be realistic.  Sometimes being more aggressive is better than being more passive.. sometimes more lives are saved that way.  Sometimes sacrifices do get made and circumstances are not ideal.


Otherwise, the fix is in and there's no point in trying to make "the best" choice because the answer will always be "do the ideal thing and it'll always turn out the best."  There are no "hard" decisions to make in that light... removing the point of having a choice at all (for that purpose).

Bioware's been saying Renegades aren't "evil"... but they hardly provide anything in their writing and outcomes to back that notion up.

Evil depends on your point of view. I think that some renegade decissions are outright evil. For example killing people for no good reason. Of course we could argue what is a good reason. I always try to avoid killing because you kill enemies by the hundret's anyway, so sparing the one or the other poor bastard I figure can only do good for Shep's reputation. If you look at it, even paragon Shep's can be considered murderers by some, since at some point you end up on a pile of corpses and who is to say they all deserved death. So my idea is to let at least some get away to confirm that you're not a heartless killing machine.

You could also argue that the Sith are simply Darwinistic and champion the theory of evolution as a lifestyle.  The strong thrive and reproduce, the weak whither and die (or are subjected to rule).

I personally don't distinguish between the choices as much.  I view most Renegade responses as the same Shepard whose patience has run out... everyone gets ticked off some time (whether they act on it is a different story).

Without trying to get in a philosphical debate, so-called 'darwinism' has less to do with evolution, more with simple right of the stronger (or fitter). So you have every right to do whatever you want to do because you can do it. I think we (humans) as a society have long grown beyond that stage. Otherwise we'd be nothing but dumb animals.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...
Without trying to get in a philosphical debate, so-called 'darwinism' has less to do with evolution, more with simple right of the stronger (or fitter). So you have every right to do whatever you want to do because you can do it. I think we (humans) as a society have long grown beyond that stage. Otherwise we'd be nothing but dumb animals.

It's evolutionary (theory) in lifestyle.  Do what you want, go with your feelings, and only the strong and/or cunning survive.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:45 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Without trying to get in a philosphical debate, so-called 'darwinism' has less to do with evolution, more with simple right of the stronger (or fitter). So you have every right to do whatever you want to do because you can do it. I think we (humans) as a society have long grown beyond that stage. Otherwise we'd be nothing but dumb animals.

It's evolutionary (theory) in lifestyle.  Do what you want, go with your feelings, and only the strong and/or cunning survive.

Yeah, I am just saying we have grown beyond that. I know animals act like that, but there has no society been based on this concept in ages, because I think it won't work anyway. Just think about wellfare and how we treat old people, sick people, people with disabilities, mental and physical. Do we push them around, treat them like they are worthless just because we can? I hope not.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Grr.....*berserk button triggered*.

Social Darwinism it NOT a necessary consequence of evolution. By thinking so, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy among other things. Social Darwinism is a political ideology that attempts to justify social inequality by evolution, but you can just as easily justify more egalitarian ideologies by asserting that the human ability to co-operate widely has arisen exactly because it was advantageous for the species. Almost all human traits are the result of evolution and contribute to our species' survival. They are all "adaptive". It is dishonest to single one out, and it is fallacious to claim that just because things are a certain way in  speciation, they must also be the same in social reality.

I wouldn't have made this post if I hadn't spotted this kind of thinking in the ME3 leaked script. Whoever wrote this is promoting ignorance! As if there wasn't enough ignorance in biology around. Damn it.

Be that as it may, the point still stands.  They aren't all adaptive.  Compassion is not something necessary for personal survival... but something commonly attributed to moral decency and civility.  Adaptation in evolution just raises the chances of survival... but in the end it's still the "strong" and/or cunning that continue to persist and pass on their genetic successors into the future.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Can't satisfy everyone... but they can at least not favor blue choices over all of the others... given that their stated goal is to not have "easy" choices to make.

And they have some. Like Legion's loyalty mission or BDtS.

Most of them are based around characters, which obviously varies from person to person.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Can't satisfy everyone... but they can at least not favor blue choices over all of the others... given that their stated goal is to not have "easy" choices to make.

And they have some. Like Legion's loyalty mission or BDtS.

Most of them are based around characters, which obviously varies from person to person.

Given that BDtS didn't result in any known casualties by letting Balak go... I'd say things are still in the Paragon's favor there.

Rogue Geth seem present regardless (as well)... so I don't see any negative to the Paragon choice here either.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Without trying to get in a philosphical debate, so-called 'darwinism' has less to do with evolution, more with simple right of the stronger (or fitter). So you have every right to do whatever you want to do because you can do it. I think we (humans) as a society have long grown beyond that stage. Otherwise we'd be nothing but dumb animals.

It's evolutionary (theory) in lifestyle.  Do what you want, go with your feelings, and only the strong and/or cunning survive.

Yeah, I am just saying we have grown beyond that. I know animals act like that, but there has no society been based on this concept in ages, because I think it won't work anyway. Just think about wellfare and how we treat old people, sick people, people with disabilities, mental and physical. Do we push them around, treat them like they are worthless just because we can? I hope not.

Yeah, I was just pointing to the Sith as an example of those that do still follow it.

Now for a neat notion... being that the Reapers (and likely others) in the Mass Effect universe point their origins (or atleast progression) to evolution, would they ever acknowledge the existence of Bioware?

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Grr.....*berserk button triggered*.

Social Darwinism it NOT a necessary consequence of evolution. By thinking so, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy among other things. Social Darwinism is a political ideology that attempts to justify social inequality by evolution, but you can just as easily justify more egalitarian ideologies by asserting that the human ability to co-operate widely has arisen exactly because it was advantageous for the species. Almost all human traits are the result of evolution and contribute to our species' survival. They are all "adaptive". It is dishonest to single one out, and it is fallacious to claim that just because things are a certain way in  speciation, they must also be the same in social reality.

I wouldn't have made this post if I hadn't spotted this kind of thinking in the ME3 leaked script. Whoever wrote this is promoting ignorance! As if there wasn't enough ignorance in biology around. Damn it.

Be that as it may, the point still stands.  They aren't all adaptive.  Compassion is not something necessary for personal survival... but something commonly attributed to moral decency and civility.  Adaptation in evolution just raises the chances of survival... but in the end it's still the "strong" and/or cunning that continue to persist and pass on their genetic successors into the future.

Because we are not a species of lone wolves. Our very society is based on cooperation. If you choose to live apart from society, will you not walk roads someone built for you, live in a house someone built for you, etc? That's why I say if human beings talk about darwinism as lifestyle they are just being jerkish anti-social opportunists. Basically leeching on society without doing their part, as all the others do.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 décembre 2011 - 08:58 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Grr.....*berserk button triggered*.

Social Darwinism it NOT a necessary consequence of evolution. By thinking so, you're committing the naturalistic fallacy among other things. Social Darwinism is a political ideology that attempts to justify social inequality by evolution, but you can just as easily justify more egalitarian ideologies by asserting that the human ability to co-operate widely has arisen exactly because it was advantageous for the species. Almost all human traits are the result of evolution and contribute to our species' survival. They are all "adaptive". It is dishonest to single one out, and it is fallacious to claim that just because things are a certain way in  speciation, they must also be the same in social reality.

I wouldn't have made this post if I hadn't spotted this kind of thinking in the ME3 leaked script. Whoever wrote this is promoting ignorance! As if there wasn't enough ignorance in biology around. Damn it.

Be that as it may, the point still stands.  They aren't all adaptive.  Compassion is not something necessary for personal survival... but something commonly attributed to moral decency and civility.  Adaptation in evolution just raises the chances of survival... but in the end it's still the "strong" and/or cunning that continue to persist and pass on their genetic successors into the future.

Because we are not a species of lone wolves. Our very society is based on cooperation. If you choose to live apart from society, will you not walk roads someone built for you, live in a house someone built for you, etc? That's why I say if human beings talk about darwinism as lifestyle they are just being jerkish anti-social opportinists.

Hence... the Sith Empire.

[BlueMagitek]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, I don't really care, since I'm not playing for the choices. Which I think some people have some pretty unrealistic expectation of. It's like they want the galaxy to change just because Shepard did or didn't do a specific thing and then they're complaining about how Shepard is close to being a god because of it.

Yeah...

Except that Shepard is in a place to influence the galaxy.  In ME1, you had two major choices; the survival of the Rachni and the fate of the Council.  In ME 2, you had the genophage cure (and possibly Legion's loyalty mission if nothing is done about the heretic virus).  These choices can all have a large influence on the galaxy (or should, anyway).  >_>

[111987]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, I don't really care, since I'm not playing for the choices. Which I think some people have some pretty unrealistic expectation of. It's like they want the galaxy to change just because Shepard did or didn't do a specific thing and then they're complaining about how Shepard is close to being a god because of it.

Yeah...

Except that Shepard is in a place to influence the galaxy.  In ME1, you had two major choices; the survival of the Rachni and the fate of the Council.  In ME 2, you had the genophage cure (and possibly Legion's loyalty mission if nothing is done about the heretic virus).  These choices can all have a large influence on the galaxy (or should, anyway).  >_>

Agreed; these four choices should have the most impact, and there should be notable consequences. Arguably the same with the Collector Base.

Stuff like Helena Blake, or Fist? I'm happy with a cameo or email.

[Someone With Mass]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Given that BDtS didn't result in any known casualties by letting Balak go... I'd say things are still in the Paragon's favor there.

Rogue Geth seem present regardless (as well)... so I don't see any negative to the Paragon choice here either.

1. You'll let a terrorist who almost smashed a colony with an asteroid go free to possibly do even worse things. 

2. There's a difference.

It's not always about who will get the better role, but how it plays out differently. Which consequences you get.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 03 décembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Without trying to get in a philosphical debate, so-called 'darwinism' has less to do with evolution, more with simple right of the stronger (or fitter). So you have every right to do whatever you want to do because you can do it. I think we (humans) as a society have long grown beyond that stage. Otherwise we'd be nothing but dumb animals.

It's evolutionary (theory) in lifestyle.  Do what you want, go with your feelings, and only the strong and/or cunning survive.

Yeah, I am just saying we have grown beyond that. I know animals act like that, but there has no society been based on this concept in ages, because I think it won't work anyway. Just think about wellfare and how we treat old people, sick people, people with disabilities, mental and physical. Do we push them around, treat them like they are worthless just because we can? I hope not.

Yeah, I was just pointing to the Sith as an example of those that do still follow it.

Now for a neat notion... being that the Reapers (and likely others) in the Mass Effect universe point their origins (or atleast progression) to evolution, would they ever acknowledge the existence of Bioware?

Sith are sort of an evil religion in a world in which good and evil really exists, represented by the force as a sort of supernatural ... well, force ... I think of the 'dark side' as a force that works like a drug, so you could say that people who use it are manipulated by the force to keep walking towards the dark side. That's not someting that exists in the ME universe in this fashion I think. I personally pity the Sith because even if they win they lose. Because whatever they are looking for, they won't get it, in victory or defeat. It is only a matter of time until a stronger Sith comes along an takes everything from you.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Given that BDtS didn't result in any known casualties by letting Balak go... I'd say things are still in the Paragon's favor there.

Rogue Geth seem present regardless (as well)... so I don't see any negative to the Paragon choice here either.

1. You'll let a terrorist who almost smashed a colony with an asteroid go free to possibly do even worse things. 

2. There's a difference.

1.  As of ME2, nothing happens.

2.  Maaaaaybe?  You may have more rogue geth, but you'd also likely have more Geth allies.  Same for the Rachni.

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, I don't really care, since I'm not playing for the choices. Which I think some people have some pretty unrealistic expectation of. It's like they want the galaxy to change just because Shepard did or didn't do a specific thing and then they're complaining about how Shepard is close to being a god because of it.

Yeah...

Except that Shepard is in a place to influence the galaxy.  In ME1, you had two major choices; the survival of the Rachni and the fate of the Council.  In ME 2, you had the genophage cure (and possibly Legion's loyalty mission if nothing is done about the heretic virus).  These choices can all have a large influence on the galaxy (or should, anyway).  >_>

Agreed; these four choices should have the most impact, and there should be notable consequences. Arguably the same with the Collector Base.

Stuff like Helena Blake, or Fist? I'm happy with a cameo or email.

Heh Fist is one of the few that won't survive an encounter with my Shep. But I work around the renegade choice by having Wrex in my group. I actually like the fact that you can make renegade choices by having someone like Wrex in the group who is more than eager to take action and the blame as well.