701 réponses à ce sujet

[capn233]

Don't you mean libertarian progressives?

Yeah definitely need more fascists on the board.

[Labrev]

<-- rock-solid Libertarian.

I needn't take a test, I just know.

[capn233]

Here is the updated copy if anyone cares anymore...

here

Modifié par capn233, 09 décembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[Labrev]

capn233 wrote...

Here is the updated copy if anyone cares anymore...

here

LOL @ you. Outlierrrrrr.

[Seboist]

capn233 wrote...

Here is the updated copy if anyone cares anymore...

here

Even more updated.

Link

[capn233]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

LOL @ you. Outlierrrrrr.

Nationalism will lead us to victory!

Modifié par capn233, 09 décembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[InvincibleHero]

Rojahar wrote...

You say the Paragon choices are unsafe, and they should be from a logical standpoint, but the game always shows us that Paragon gambits will always pay off. It's not unsafe or a gamble if it will always work out every single time. The relationship you set up is false, because in the actual games Paragon always achieves greater immediate safety and greater long term support.  Renegades are immediately chastised and hated for their decisions, and ultimately always proven wrong, no matter how moderate or logical the decision may be.

They may as well change the symbols for the alignment to a green checkmark for Paragon and red X for Renegade, to more clearly illustrate what they really symbolize. You say blindly choosing Paragon is silly, but it leads to a perfect Shepard who's held on a pedestal, while any and every Renegade decision moves you closer to the opposite. Both have their RP/theoretical risks, but in practice, Paragon always turns out well while Renegade is always wrong, even if it trudges along anyway. Imagine if coins always turned up heads. How compelling would flipping a coin be?

BTW, updated political chart.

Well that goes for movies and Tv shows too. It is the maxim that a good deed should never be punished. People of a certain age have been brought up with that and it has been slowly changing in media where good stories can happen when things don't work out for the good guys. Reality says you can do your best and still not be appreciated or even someone might hate you for it. Even Superman has been hated. Indeed Lex Luthor was a product of Superman's heroics though I consider him becoming bald to wanting to destroy Superman and rule the world as a little far-fetched.

[InvincibleHero]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ I think you mean "bad."

No Golden Age LL was made bald from a lab accident which caused a fire which SM extinguished with his super breath which caused him to be immediately bald from the wind or chemicals or both maybe. He then declared his hatred and desire to kill SM for that despite them being friends before that. So that is how one of DC's greatest villains was created.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

iOnlySignIn wrote...
Apparently BSN is a stronghold for anarcho-communists.

I don't think those does actually exist.

[AlexXIV]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...
Apparently BSN is a stronghold for anarcho-communists.

I don't think those does actually exist.

You could probably also call them social liberalists. Or liberal socialists. Anarcho-Commonists though sounds ... you know ... flashier.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 09 décembre 2011 - 09:10 .

[capn233]

Do you have anything flashier? I want something that says "I own this debate, I own you."

[AlexXIV]

Hehe, yes that's what I was talking about. I guess for the rest of my life whenever someone mentions 'flashy' I will have the picture of a volus on Illium in my mind.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 09 décembre 2011 - 09:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Calinstel wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Thread title is funny.
Being a paragon entails being able to compromise.
Take the rachni. Shepard knows about the dangers of allowing the rachni to once more join the galactic races and must make a choice. The safe, uncompromising stance is to kill the queen. The unsafe, compromising stance, is to let the queen live.
In death, there is no compromise, only oblivion.

Blindly choosing Paragon or, for that matter, Renegade, is silly. Both sides compromise. Paragons compromise by hoping that the people/species he/she helps returns the favor in the final battles. Renegades compromise as well by sacrificing future support for immediate safety.
They are two means to the same end. Winning the war against the Reapers.

You say the Paragon choices are unsafe, and they should be from a logical standpoint, but the game always shows us that Paragon gambits will always pay off. It's not unsafe or a gamble if it will always work out every single time. The relationship you set up is false, because in the actual games Paragon always achieves greater immediate safety and greater long term support.  Renegades are immediately chastised and hated for their decisions, and ultimately always proven wrong, no matter how moderate or logical the decision may be.

They may as well change the symbols for the alignment to a green checkmark for Paragon and red X for Renegade, to more clearly illustrate what they really symbolize. You say blindly choosing Paragon is silly, but it leads to a perfect Shepard who's held on a pedestal, while any and every Renegade decision moves you closer to the opposite. Both have their RP/theoretical risks, but in practice, Paragon always turns out well while Renegade is always wrong, even if it trudges along anyway. Imagine if coins always turned up heads. How compelling would flipping a coin be?

BTW, updated political chart.

When I played ME1, I had no knowledge that in ME2 or 3 the rachni choice would make it better or worse.  It was a risk letting the queen live.  Letting a race that waged galactic war free to roam again WAS a gamble.
Now, 4 years later, that choice is either coming back to haunt me or help me.  I was not clairvoyant, I was making a choice and I chose life.

How it plays out is BW's concern, not mine.  Using metagaming/leak information is nothing but an attempt to discredit the feelings and thoughts I had when the choice was made.  My first playthrough, I did think about the pro's and con's.  To me, the pro's outweighed the con's, so the queen was freed.  If it turns out that in ME3, I have to fight a hoard of rachni and you, due to your choice, do not, then thats okay.  One of my hopes failed, thats all that happened.  All my other hopes may well still be there and come into play to help.  The Renagade though has no worries about the queen, or any other race as they have shut them out.  Standing alone against what is coming.
Now, we both know that neither Paragon or Renagade will actually be all alone.  The other races will help but that is a game mechanic, not real life.  Both sides will have the support and help.  Just Renegades or Paragons may have less of one and more of another type of aid.

All this argueing and finger pointing is silly.  Each and every one of us made our own choices, based on our own feelings and beliefs.  There is no right answer, no wrong, just an answer and that is all.  My most important choice was not choosing to be Renagade.  Harming others for fun, not my thing.  Killing without need, not me either.  I'm sure, that the Renagade player sees the choices differently, and I say, fine.  Two different views on the same issue is human nature.

Which... is not the point of the what you quoted in bold...

The choice the player makes is irrelevant... the issue is that none of the choices fare better than the blue button... ever.  There is no hard choice when the best solutions end up in favor of blue every... single... time.

[AlexXIV]

Calinstel wrote...

You know it is said that safety is an illusion. And that's basically true. If you have two choices, one offers 99% success, one 1%. Then it turns out the 1% chance works and the 99% chance fails. You did everything right choosing the 99. But ... **** happened ... basically. Now you can complain about how the world is unfair and that things should have been different. Or you can accept it as it is and work with it.

What is metagaming is people complaining that Bioware makes paragon the safe route or the auto win. Because you could just take things as they are and cope with it. What people who complain about the story itself, not the way it is executed but the events themselves, do is simply telling Bioware 'we don't like your story, we wanted a different one'. Well two options. Make your own stories, found your own company, etc. Or just deal with the fact that not every story of every game that is made needs to fit everyone's individual taste.

I know I am a long time Bioware fan because of the way they make games. Of course things can always be improved, and should. But generally speaking I always find myself thinking if I read some people's complaints: 'Then don't buy the game.' And there is not much more to be said because there actually are different games for different tastes. If all games were the same then everyone needed to have the same taste. How is that going to happen?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 09 décembre 2011 - 11:30 .

[Seboist]

Rojahar wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Thread title is funny.
Being a paragon entails being able to compromise.
Take the rachni. Shepard knows about the dangers of allowing the rachni to once more join the galactic races and must make a choice. The safe, uncompromising stance is to kill the queen. The unsafe, compromising stance, is to let the queen live.
In death, there is no compromise, only oblivion.

Blindly choosing Paragon or, for that matter, Renegade, is silly. Both sides compromise. Paragons compromise by hoping that the people/species he/she helps returns the favor in the final battles. Renegades compromise as well by sacrificing future support for immediate safety.
They are two means to the same end. Winning the war against the Reapers.

You say the Paragon choices are unsafe, and they should be from a logical standpoint, but the game always shows us that Paragon gambits will always pay off. It's not unsafe or a gamble if it will always work out every single time. The relationship you set up is false, because in the actual games Paragon always achieves greater immediate safety and greater long term support.  Renegades are immediately chastised and hated for their decisions, and ultimately always proven wrong, no matter how moderate or logical the decision may be.

They may as well change the symbols for the alignment to a green checkmark for Paragon and red X for Renegade, to more clearly illustrate what they really symbolize. You say blindly choosing Paragon is silly, but it leads to a perfect Shepard who's held on a pedestal, while any and every Renegade decision moves you closer to the opposite. Both have their RP/theoretical risks, but in practice, Paragon always turns out well while Renegade is always wrong, even if it trudges along anyway. Imagine if coins always turned up heads. How compelling would flipping a coin be?

BTW, updated political chart.

It really makes one wonder why they ever bothered with "choices" or a Renegade path when ME revolves around being politically correct liberal hollywood cliche space hero #813393783.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, I can and will argue that Paragon always being the road to success without consequence undermines the moral decisions' effectiveness. They're dull and boring, there is no tension.

That's true, but tbh for a paragon it doesn't matter in any way. Reason simply being that paragons go for the morale choice. Even if it turns out to be wrong. You don't judge a morale choice on the outcome, you judge it on the intention. Paragon choices that backfire would bother all those who only pick paragon because they think it is the safe road. But a 'true' paragon chooses the morale higher ground even if it is maybe not the rational choice. Paragons believe in the higher good. That doing the right thing will ultimately be for the best.

You can critisize Bioware for making idealistic games who neglect rational decissions to a certain point and support idealist ones. But it is a game, not realitly. Some people even prefer it exactly this way. I wouldn't know why any game has any claim to realism. They are games. They are not meant to replace or copy real life. So in ME idealistic choices pay off, unlike in the real world. Maybe that's an universal law in this world. So if you hate it so much you can just not go there. If you want more real life, it's right outside the door. I find the claim of lack of realism to be a sign of 'bad writing' or something rather far fetched. Considered we are talking about stories, and furthermore fantastic/sci-fi stories. You can always claim a 'higher power' exists that supports good natured beings.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 décembre 2011 - 12:02 .

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

That's true, but tbh for a paragon it doesn't matter in any way. Reason simply being that paragons go for the morale choice.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to go for the moral choice. However their choice should have depth to it in the form of sacrifices needed to maintain that morality. Walking the high road is not supposed to be easy.

Yes but if Bioware decided that the high road is supposed to be easy, what are we going to do about it? I am pretty sure they don't only know what we know, they probably know more. Because that's their business. So even if we question their choices we do it from a point of view that's probably inferior to Bioware's. What you can do is not buy their games if you dislike their style.