701 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

He means that you shouldn't know that it is almost the same as the default, unless you are metagaming.

What does this have to do with meta-gaming?

I'm talking about the design of the game here and my experience with it as a player. I'm not talking about the decision making process or which outcomes are right or wrong. I'm questioning the implementation of the import feature and the way that it has hurt the game.

Justifying why you made a decision based on information not available to the player or Shepard at the time is one thing. This is something else. I'm questioning the design decisions implemented in the game itself.

What is the fun or point in playing a Renegade through the series if they don't actually get anything for importing their character beyond a higher starting level?

Yeah I got that. Paragons get something, Renegades don't. I see the problem.

[Dave of Canada]

Having read the spoilers in great detail, pretty much every paragon decision results in friendship, allies and soldiers. Every renegade decision offers you an option to change your mind, admit how foolish you were and try again. However, doing so will result in less-than-spectacular benefits as they'll often backfire too.

Paragon staying Paragon = Best ending.
Paragon going Renegade = You get somewhat better scenarios.
Renegade going Paragon = You get some benefits, though some backfire.
Renegade staying Renegade = Everybody hates you and you're forced to kill a lot of people you like.

The ironic situation is that Renegades only benefit from the "non-intimidate" Renegade options a few times, such as having Wreav in charge instead of Wrex.

[Unschuld]

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
Shep: "Well fight and win without it, I wont let fear compromise who I am."

Yet you blow up the base due to a fear of what Cerberus could do with it.

Something tells me you missed the point...

The point is stupid.

Of course it's "stupid"... to you. Your morals don't align with the dialogue presented by that choice.

[GodWood]

Unschuld wrote...
Of course it's "stupid"... to you. Your morals don't align with the dialogue presented by that choice.

To anyone with a functioning brain its stupid.

Risking all life in the galaxy to satisfy some personal moral code is absolutely selfish and quite possibly in my eyes the most evil thing a person can do.

[mango smoothie]

@OP
      I was talking to my brother recently and he and I we're discussing what we might be doing in ME3. Now my brother has played a goody two shoes paragon in both ME 1 and 2 with the only renegade decision he made was destroying the greybox on Kasumi's mission. He told me though that he feels he made too many sacrifices to keep his moral self in both games, and that he's probably going to think through his decisions more and try to do whats best for the war. So I know of at least one paragon who will be more open to renegade decisions in ME3.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[AlexXIV]

jreezy wrote...

someone else wrote...

Schroedingers Cat - a physics paradox that illustrates the point that an event outcome doesn't exist until an observation is made - before opening the box, the cat is both dead and alive, before opening ME2, the game state is indeterminate. (an application of heisenberg's principle)

- most simply not only can't you know the state of your new ME2 universe till you start it, it does not exist, paragon or renegade till you do.

Your foreknowledge of the me2 vanilla state confounds your attempt to import a renegade and have a valid renegade gamestate at the outset

This was freaking awesome. I just took physics and this one post was more interesting than that whole class.

Don't know I always thought it sounds like more than it really is.

[someone else]

I know you're not looking at this as good or bad choices - neither am i - but i understand your objection to be that importing a ren changes very little than if you did a vanilla start - quite true. And if you do a paragon import many of those decisions are changed.

But your dissatisfaction is based on your meta awareness of the developers choices - had they made the para choices default, the shoe would be on the other claw, paw, tentacle, whatever. It would strengthen your argument somewhat to object to the wholesale embrace of renegade choices - perhaps the rachni should be alive, the council dead, and anderson pres, etc.

But that does not address the core flaw in your argument - your experience as a player is colored by your meta-knowledge, and while it is valid to object that since that knowledge is readily available, you are within bounds objecting to the devs choices, it is equally true that some choices had to be made. And inasmuch as the willing suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite for certain kinds of artistic experience, a similar mental exercise is all that is required here.

Modifié par someone else, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:14 .

[H00plehead]

someone else wrote...

Schroedingers Cat - a physics paradox that illustrates the point that an event outcome doesn't exist until an observation is made - before opening the box, the cat is both dead and alive, before opening ME2, the game state is indeterminate. (an application of heisenberg's principle)

Ugh...

"When I hear about Schroedinger's cat, I reach for my gun."
                                                              - Stephen Hawking

[Unschuld]

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
Of course it's "stupid"... to you. Your morals don't align with the dialogue presented by that choice.

To anyone with a functioning brain its stupid.

Risking all life in the galaxy to satisfy some personal moral code is absolutely selfish and quite possibly in my eyes the most evil thing a person can do.

That assumes that the choice of morality has no logical backing. In regards to trusting Cerberus with that sort of technology the writing was all over the walls in ME2... and now into ME3. Since you chose to stick with Cerberus in hopes (?) that they would use the tech responsibly, that's your logic. This really isn't worth the debate.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Paragons don't have to compromise on anything... as long as there's a choice, it'll work out the best by going blue... it's always been this way... and I have serious doubts as to whether that'll stop in ME3.

Blue = best result button

[GodWood]

Unschuld wrote...
This really isn't worth the debate.

Indeed. Anyone who actually puts some thought behind the CB decision and thinks blowing it up is the best idea is a blight on the human race. Debate with such a person is pointless.

[Ryzaki]

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
This really isn't worth the debate.

Indeed. Anyone who actually puts some thought behind the CB decision and thinks blowing it up is the best idea is a blight on the human race. Debate with such a person is pointless.

Just...really? 

[DiebytheSword]

Unschuld wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
Of course it's "stupid"... to you. Your morals don't align with the dialogue presented by that choice.

To anyone with a functioning brain its stupid.

Risking all life in the galaxy to satisfy some personal moral code is absolutely selfish and quite possibly in my eyes the most evil thing a person can do.

That assumes that the choice of morality has no logical backing. In regards to trusting Cerberus with that sort of technology the writing was all over the walls in ME2... and now into ME3. Since you chose to stick with Cerberus in hopes (?) that they would use the tech responsibly, that's your logic. This really isn't worth the debate.

People assess threats differently, if they didn't we'd have no problems deciding national defense issues between political parties (at least here in the US). 

As to comments on fear, you are still acting out of fear on both sides.  Fear of the Reapers (and inability to defeat them) or fear of Ceberus (and inability to trust them).  It's the Devil you know vs the Devil you don't, but then I guess even that much is in question, and not agreed upon.

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

he has no clue what I was talking about.

this is what you are talking about, correct?

Saphra Deden wrote...
I'm questioning the implementation of the import feature and the way that it has hurt the game.

And your objection is that a renegade import has no impact on the ME2 starting gamestate.

Please correct me if I misunderstand your point.

Modifié par someone else, 06 décembre 2011 - 11:22 .

[Unschuld]

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
This really isn't worth the debate.

Indeed. Anyone who actually puts some thought behind the CB decision and thinks blowing it up is the best idea is a blight on the human race. Debate with such a person is pointless.

*Yawn*

[AlexXIV]

You know thinking about it I figure that the facts don't speak for either choice loud enough. The base COULD BE useful but it COULD BE in the wrong hands if you give it to Cerberus. However I feel more comfortable making a morale choice there when the facts give me nothing.

[Someone With Mass]

The really funny thing is that some people act as if you can't get the perfect ending (depending on your definition of it) if you're going Renegade. Which is a complete lie. You'll merely take a different path.

"But I can't get that!"

Then fight the odds and win without it. Either that or make some exceptions if you want some specific things so badly.

That's what I do if I see something that I like that's not in my current path. Like the cabin scene in LotSB or the eventual interrupt that thins out the enemy ranks.

[Omega4RelayResident]

GodWood wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Omega4RelayResident wrote...
Shep: "Well fight and win without it, I wont let fear compromise who I am."

Yet you blow up the base due to a fear of what Cerberus could do with it.

Something tells me you missed the point...

The point is stupid.

Riiiiight.... Whatever you say.