578 réponses à ce sujet

[John Renegade]

Random Nobody wrote...

I don't think it was, but don't quote me on this.

You tell it to Chorban when you speak to him (I think it ends the Scan the keepars assignment, though I've heard about possible bugs). Than you need to talk to Jahleed too to end the other quest (which is not relevant).

[Yezdigerd]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That's beside the point. The Shadow Broker would be a very useful ally for Shepard to have and giving him the Cerberus data is a nice way to earn his favor.

No it's not, you could just as well say that the Shadowbroker owned Shepard a favor since he got rid of Fist for him. What reason do you have to believe this dude even is a representative of the shadowbroker? For all we know you were simply had, you gained nothing from the "deal". (which is a pity because it could have been interesting if renegades actually had got some substanstial advantage from it.)

He will get the data eventually anyway (after all he was the one who pointed Kahoku to those bases in the first place).

He says he will get the data eventually. It's a common approach to soothe a guilty conscience when you ask someone to betray a confidence.

Shepard is a Spectre and is fully within his rights to seek support outside the Alliance. This may be an issue of morals so far as duty and loyalty are concerned, but the reasoning for helping the Shadow Broker in ME1 is quite sound.

Yeah it seems spectre is the renegade "gets out of jail" card. You can can kill, steal and betray the alliance, put kittens on fire, all for the lulz, without consequences because spectres are "above the law". Instead of finding a ruthless approach that made sense the absurdity is handwaved.

So are you going to refute what I said or not? Maybe Shepard doesn't care about the potential political fallout or maybe the fallout won't be what you think it will be. Maybe Talid's death will demoralize the opposition? After all he himself was corrupt too.

Refute what? It still makes no sense, there are too many witnesses to cover it up. Spectre's who kills politicians on the citadel needs to have a very good reason for it, because media and public opinion will hold the Council accountable. Yes sure Shepard can flash his spectre badge and get away. It still leaves the council to take the heat, since the killing is without any justification whatsoever and political dynamite besides, stripping Shepard of spectrehood(which didn't even apply on the citadel) should be the least the council should do. and if Shepard wasn't a spectre, how can  Bailey, corrupt or not, justify letting Shepard go? Shepard comitted murder in front of your very eyes Sergeant, and you let him walk away?
and yes maybe Shepard doesn't care about, you know if he is stupid.

You're wrong. Let me paint a picture for you.

So here I have to roleplay and invent my own reason based on what little the game gives me.

No I'm not, you need to make assumptions not supported by the game in order to justify the absurdity of not using the grenades.

You even agreed that Shepard wanted to protect his squad was reasonable.

Yes but not protect his people at all costs, It's the job of soldiers and police to take risks in their line of duty. It doesn't cost Shepard anything to try out the grenades. In the actual gameplay Shepard and co has armor and kinetic barriers, a stray bullet won't kill them. There are no time limit, not even trying to save the colonists is just unnecessarily harsh.

[Yezdigerd]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...
Many of the paragon decisions can be "for the lulz" too.

Like what?

[Harmless Citizen]

You guys are confused. This isn't about the choices you make in the game. This is about arguing for your choices on the forum, IRL, while the crowd boos and throws rotten tomatoes at you (like some silly images), instead of participating in the debate.

...Clearly somebody did not read the thread...or anything, really. It's troll bait fro end to end, only good for pic spamming until its inevitable lock.

[Harmless Citizen]

This is relevant to the subject of the thread - about personality traits.

No, it isn't. I'm sure you realise, but one person's actions are not representative of a group's, nor is it indicative of an overarching pattern of behaviour. Suggesting that the way people play a video game (one that isn't entirely binary and encourages multiple playthroughs/moralities, no less) has any concrete bearing on personality is one of the most idiotic premises I've ever had the misfortune of reading. All this is, is an excuse for the same members to come here and ****** over their "superior play style" and "awes0m debate skills" whilst furiously squabbling with each other like old hens. All that, and still with psuedo-intellectuality and unwarranted self-importance.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Someone With Mass]

laecraft wrote...

This is actually quite interesting. Someone With Mass, so you think that roleplaying choices made in a video game, those that harm no one but pixels, must be justified, while the random acts of aggression IRL against real, live people don't have to be?

Just curious, here. This is relevant to the subject of the thread - about personality traits.

I was referring to people like Saphra, who almost always tries to push down the Paragon choices as careless, irresponsible and sometimes immoral (I'm probably leaving out some adjectives he's using, but you get the point), even if the Renegade decisions are no better at times. Often the same time, even.

As for that PM (which such a big deal, apparently) I was just tired of Kaiser's jerkass attitude and wanted him to simply shut the **** up instead of throwing snide comments at everything I posted, as if I can't tell when I am what I tell people to don't be.

Which is also something nobody else on the face on the planet has ever done in history, right?

[Ravensword]

Random Nobody wrote...

This is relevant to the subject of the thread - about personality traits.

No, it isn't. I'm sure you realise, but one person's actions are not representative of a group's, nor is it indicative of an overarching pattern of behaviour. Suggesting that the way people play a video game (one that isn't entirely binary and encourages multiple playthroughs/moralities, no less) has any concrete bearing on personality is one of the most idiotic premises I've ever had the misfortune of reading. All this is, is an excuse for the same members to come here and ****** over their "superior play style" and "awes0m debate skills" whilst furiously squabbling with each other like old hens. All that, and still with psuedo-intellectuality and unwarranted self-importance.

Obvious troll is obvious.

You forget one thing: this is the Internet. And God bless you should someone deem you to be wrong or not share their opinion.

[Harmless Citizen]

Maybe, but the BSN populace seems to be even more susceptible to arsepain at the drop of a hat than usual. I've never seen such a collection of precious anuses.

Nearly everyone here is too srs business. Srsly.

[TheSweetGirl]

*eats popcorn and laughs out loud*

Such an obvious bait to flame people who think differently than others, praising themselves. People who believe they are always right and the others wrong because they can't handle the fact that people play differently than them and if they do, they are automatically attacked for their opinions.

*claps*

Well done.

Now, someone locked this thread please. I had my fill of this nonsense.

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

[Eclipse_9990]

Random Nobody wrote...

Maybe, but the BSN populace seems to be even more susceptible to arsepain at the drop of a hat than usual. I've never seen such a collection of precious anuses.

Nearly everyone here is too srs business. Srsly.

Pretty much this. I think the mods need to start giving away some nifedipine to help still the epidemic of butthurt that making its away around this forum. 

[Labrev]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

OP is basically saying: "Look here's a bone. Now all you ****es start fighting over it."

And it worked! Bravo.

I'm glad for it, I enjoyed this thread.

Actually I somewhat agree with the OP. I used to like those guys (except Zeel, he's just a loser troll w/ no life) but now they've all just become rotten whiney-babies because "wahhh, renegades don't get to have their cake and eat it!" and "wahhh, Cerberus is villain nao!"

They're no fun anymore.

[HolyAvenger]

My first Shep was almost Paragon, my second was almost pure renegade.

What does this make me, schizo?

[firefireblow]

BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL!!

I call upon the powers of my paragade to disscuss with this thread.




*Nope ain't working.

Modifié par firefireblow, 05 décembre 2011 - 02:53 .

[mango smoothie]

what I think.

[111987]

Zeelx wrote...


I'm also pretty damn sure renegade players are decided at birth. You can't become one, you are one. A true gentlemen/badass.


Yes. I'm awesome. I remembering debating with both Kaiser and Saphra, I think it was over a troll but nontheless I found their arguments more amusing than most of the ******-****** paragons pour. Also I've debated 1108090(Number guy) and I think he's an okay debater, I didn't find his arguments all that compelling.

Are you talking about me?

Because I'm pretty sure I've never debated you. But I'm happy I got an honorable mention kind of...

Modifié par 111987, 05 décembre 2011 - 05:29 .

[spirosz]

[Yezdigerd]

Saphra Deden wrote...
No, they're even. Shepard didn't pay for the information if you went that route and if you didn't talk to Barla Von then Shepard was acting completely independently.

Point being that there is no reason to give the SB the data out of gratitude.

If you don't think the Shadow Broker would have been a valuable ally then... well I don't know what to say.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

(why you think attacking this on moral grounds constitutes a refutation of my argument baffles me)

You don't find it out of character for Shepard, the handpicked alliance marine for spectrehood, to comitt treason?

How do I know it is really Hackett when he contacts me? How did the Council know it was really Saren in the recording? How do I know TIM is really the leader of Cerberus? Connect the dots, son.

Closed communication system, verification codes are exchanged of course, how do you think it works in real life? and while the US Navy have recognation codes for admiral Smith, I'm not so sure about the Corleone mafia.
and that audiorecordings from destroyed geth is somehow incontriversible evidence doesn't excuse other unrelated unsupported leaps of logic. Anyway even if it can be established that the voice is "a representative of the shadowbroker" giving away state secrets for vague unspecified pledges of assistance in the future is laughable.

That goes for both moralities, FYI.

Except paragons doesn't need it. Renegade Shepard summary executes people in the citadel market. Something that even with Spectre rank should require an investigation, but without it should result in a prison sentence. Even though renegades gets away with doing just that in the case of Fist. Which is why the game doesn't take the absurd actions of the renegade seriously.

There are only three people (not counting Thane and Kolyat), one of them being a corrupt police chief.

No, you are wrong. Bailey has a C-sec squad with him watching the murder in the cutscene. A turian among others, those guys who wouldn't even lie about the murders they themselves comitted.

Regarding Feros: then don't call it a turkey shoot for "for the lulz" because that isn't the way it is handled. You wanted an explanation, I gave you one.

Doesn't change the fact its supported by out of game assumptions.

Why don't you give me a sensible reason to destroy the Collector base? Remember, according to your own rules the only explanation is the one given by the game and Shepard clearly destroys the base for moral reasons, not tactical ones.

I actually don't think its sensible to destroy the collector base, not that I understand why the only other option is to give it to Cerberus. If nothing else it should prove to the council that the reapers exists. Which seems kinda important.

Oh wow, boy have you got it wrong.

Sorry, kid, let me enlighten you.

Police especially are NOT obligated to risk their lives for you or to die for you. That is NOT their job. It is not the military's job to die for you either but to obey the orders of the national leaders. It is not Shepard's job to save those colonists at any cost.

I really don't know what to say about this. In my world a policeman's job is to save hostages and stop armed robberies, in doing so they risk death and injury, it's part of the job.
In my world military objectives take precedence over the welfare of the soldiers. That is why soldiers die in wars. If this is your version of enlightenment, I'm not surprised you find the renegade path "realistic".
And I never said "at any cost" thats just your hyperbole because your argument is weak.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 05 décembre 2011 - 12:14 .

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Why don't you give me a sensible reason to destroy the Collector base? Remember, according to your own rules the only explanation is the one given by the game and Shepard clearly destroys the base for moral reasons, not tactical ones.

1) it is Reaper tech and we have been warned using it before
2) the Illusive Man wants to use it. You may trust him but that's nowhere near a sensible or logic decision, you just feel it is the best.
3) Shepard is only temporary with Cerberus, he really is a Spectre and serves the Council, mine is anyway. And the Council (and the alliance) will hold it against Shepard if he gives it to Cerberus.