366 réponses à ce sujet

[Yezdigerd]

Bleachrude wrote...

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

I agree it's very weak especially since all they lost were some cruisers, humanity's unwillingness to assist the DA hardly is a recommendation for leaving your fate to the leadership of humanity.Then again the entire human timeline is screwed up in mass effect.

[Yezdigerd]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Even things like turning on Legion or freeing Grunt are short-term I can use them type deals. Converesely why is it renegade to leave Grunt in tank or send Legion to Cerberus to learn more about geth. It's just stupid IMO to waste a potential ally.

Like you wasted the Rachni, that unlike the Geth offered to ally with you?

[Aumata]

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

That is a stupid response seeing how none of the allies shied away from using unethical methods to win the war.  Unless we are going to go into full detail of all the nasty bits that the allies were doing.

[InvincibleHero]

John Renegade wrote...

What I'm asking for is Paragons having their choices granting them both -  positives and negatives - as well as renegades would.

What I'm asking for is no missing content for renegades, like no human council to be seen in ME2.

What I'm asking for is, that if there are gameplay differences, than those differences should transfer to the story as well (like hypothetical allies/technology - that is the "story" part - having a direct effect on the gameplay in ME3 final battle. Effect being both positive and negative for both Paragon and Renegade).

For me and many other people mere gameplay differences are only a way by which devs get away easily from creating more deep storyline which would have an impact on the players. (Unlike when you fight one krogan more, than you would otherwise have - a big deal)

I agree with everything except the no missing content thing. I don't know why this is made into such a big deal. Of course they could also have a paragon action be unrewarded with a feel-good e-mail but so what I wouldn't care either way. BW has to be the gatekeeper for what content they create to fill the limited time, money, and disc space in creating the game. There are much bigger fish to fry.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
History also teaches us that it's the vioctors who write the history.

This is factually untrue, and there are numerous occasions of it being untrue. Stop spreading urban myths.

There's nothing mythical about it.
It depends on the victor, but in general, it is true.

Nonsense. If this was true, we would have never known about the indian genocide within the USA, the cruel deaths inside soviet union and china, etc. This vision of history is only known to be "true" in only one country, whose dictator has died last week.

It's not a strawman. If humanity were tobe exterminated tomorrow, no one would care. If it were to survive thanks to "immoral" means, no one would care (except for maybe some humans)

In here, someone once said "I once realised that living is opposite of dying!" and it became, obviously, a national joke. You are almost crossing that spurious line. Of course that we would "care" if we did immoral things, even if they were "needed". Those kinds of things are not cleaned rationally, they leave emotional bruises. Alas, I am not saying that we should not do "whatever it takes". It might just mean that we will differ on "whatever it takes".

Surtvival isall that matters. Morals are something you can indulge into when you have the luxury of being alive.

How quaint. Of course, the paradox here is that you are trying to create a new moral code saying that "morals do not matter". All very funny.

[Yezdigerd]

Aumata wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

That is a stupid response seeing how none of the allies shied away from using unethical methods to win the war.  Unless we are going to go into full detail of all the nasty bits that the allies were doing.

I never said the allied powers didn't do anything unethical, I just can't recall a nation that more flagrantly violated  agreements it promised to abide by. and in the end it resulted in no one trusting them and made the coalitions against them require unconditional surrender rather then a negotitated peace. Its a great example of indiscriminate ruthlessness backfiring.

[InvincibleHero]

Yezdigerd wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Renegades are used to making the hard decisions while paragons have had their cake and ate it.

If by hard decisions you mean indulging in pettiness and pointless cruelty, you got it right.

They save everyone and magically redeem scalawags. They likely feel deific due to the history of their victories and acclaim. Realistically that should change for ME3.

Not at all. People who punch reporters, kill the council, let people burn to death for kicks would be generally reviled and discourage trust. With even a smidgen of realism the renegade path would be hopeless.

I truly hope there is less bias in paragon =  huge win, but even if it is not so I won't lose any sleep over it.

There is no bias. You can play Shepard as a hero or a jerkface and you will succeed in either case. The only difference is that some npcs are dead because you killed them, and those alive call you a jerkface because you are.

BW determines that guess what I dont choose most of those options. The problem is BW said ren is not evil yet they did just that with some options. Paragons would get rewarded for cutting gas in the game.  Rngades would start a conflagration that kills civillians form the same scenario. No hard decisions like killing the rachni queen despite some misgivings or examples like I gave of stranding people in a war zone to die becasue it wasn't mission critical.

I don't puch the reporter ever though Manuel is fair game. I let the council die by concentrating on sovereign. How would people know you'd killed random merc 2,537 in a cruel and capricious manner on some dustball planet. Yeah illogical and yet if you've used inferno armor or incinerate you are guilty just the same. You should say if BW actually kept the path to their orignal intent it would be a completely viable philoshophy. It is only a failure because BW made it so and overly coddled and rewarded the paragon path. BW made ren into the red headed step-child though I don't understand exactly why you applaud that. Are you a better person because you play paragon? Nope. Are you superior to renegade players intellectually or otherwise purely on that basis? Nope. Are you petty as you accuse renegade of being? Perhaps.

Wow you're serious with the no bias thing. Depends what you define as success and also what is a bigger or lesser outcome. Just win isn't enough. If I placed first and got 1,000 I would be rightly insulted if number two got 10000. Would you begrudge that notion? do you think no one hated the council and would applaud their demise? Hell politicans are reviled yet allowing them to just die with no direct blame to Shepard makes all random civillians hate ren Shep. Even those that say only sovereign matters. Icould see if he assinated them but not becasue a failing ship got blown up. It is illogical.

[AgitatedLemon]

I'm all for the morally grey decisions required to save a galaxy at war, but I must agree with a lot of what Yezdigerd says, although your Hitler analogy was incredibly dumb.

A good number of the renegade options just seem like the needlessly violent short term solutions to long term problems.

Modifié par AgitatedLemon, 24 décembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[Arkitekt]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I never said the allied powers didn't do anything unethical, I just can't recall a nation that more flagrantly violated  agreements it promised to abide by. and in the end it resulted in no one trusting them and made the coalitions against them require unconditional surrender rather then a negotitated peace. Its a great example of indiscriminate ruthlessness backfiring.

The problem is that no sane person will ever take your analogy remotely seriously.

[Arkitekt]

And from having read little snippets of the leak, it's astonishingly clear that some paragon choices will bite back pretty hard. So I'd say that even if paragons have a smoother path, it's not blatantly black and white.

Modifié par Arkitekt, 24 décembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[InvincibleHero]

N172 wrote...

It seems some of you do not know what a renegade actually is, well here is a prime example from ME1:
Saren Arterius

That's great to try and smear it by application to the villain of the game. However, he thought he was doing the paragon thing saving all organics. The appeal was to a good nature ensuring the survival and he bought the indoctrination in that tact. He seen himself as the hero and Shepard the villain. So no Saren wasn't renegade as we saw in the game.

Some of the things talked about were evil which most here would label renegade like Anderson saying he detonated the bomb and fingered him for instance or Wrex saying he had some shady merc dealings and killed them all to cover it up. So what lengths would a paragon go to do what they thought is right? Do they cease being paragon when they do horrific things?

[Aumata]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

I'm all for the morally grey decisions required to save a galaxy at war, but I must agree with a lot of what Yezdigerd says, although your Hitler analogy was incredibly dumb.

A good number of the renegade options just seem like the needlessly violent short term solutions to long term problems.

As far as the major choices go they have been surpisingly grey as their are pros and cons to each of the decision.  In fact both renegade and paragon response are on the idealistic/ violent side but that is rare, and the only problem I can see with those renegade response is that it is really on the supidly needlessly for a laugh or money.  But those are rare, most can be roleplayed to make since anyway.

[Yezdigerd]

InvincibleHero wrote...
BW determines that guess what Idont choose most of those options. The problem is BW said ren is not evil yet they did just that with some options.

With many options, and when a renegade isn't evil he is very often a jerk.

Paragons would get rewarded for cutting gas in the game.  Rngades would start a conflagration that kills civillians form the same scenario. No hard decisions like killing the rachni queen despite some misgivings or examples like I gave of stranding people in a war zone to die becasue it wasn't mission critical.

Come again?

BW made ren into the red headed step-child though I don't understand exactly why you applaud that.

I don't applaud it. I would very much like renegade options that makes sense, lynching Fist or bullying Manuel are just lulz moments yet some people apparently think it adds something to the game so..

Wow you're serious with the no bias thing. Depends what you define as success and also what is a bigger or lesser outcome. Just win isn't enough. If I placed first and got 1,000 I would be rightly insulted if number two got 10000. Would you begrudge that notion? do you think no one hated the council and would applaud their demise?

I think you are complaining about the council races disliking the fact that you sacrificed the council to make a human powergrab? Well even if they didn't like the council members it's hardly strange that they don't like it. but anyway renegade Shepard is a human supremacist he really doesn't care about some alien scum.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 24 décembre 2011 - 01:56 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Aumata wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

laecraft wrote...

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should generally lead to the best outcomes.

It didn't work out for Adolf.

That is a stupid response seeing how none of the allies shied away from using unethical methods to win the war.  Unless we are going to go into full detail of all the nasty bits that the allies were doing.

I never said the allied powers didn't do anything unethical, I just can't recall a nation that more flagrantly violated  agreements it promised to abide by. and in the end it resulted in no one trusting them and made the coalitions against them require unconditional surrender rather then a negotitated peace. Its a great example of indiscriminate ruthlessness backfiring.

Whereas the Soviet Union was...?

Well, I suppose the Soviet Union was a peace-maker, a brutal power in a brutal time but better than the alternative. That makes it Paragon, apparently.


We should also remember the fates of those relatively liberal, progressive, relatively Paragon nations that stood strong before the war: France and Poland, for example.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[Yezdigerd]

Arkitekt wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

I never said the allied powers didn't do anything unethical, I just can't recall a nation that more flagrantly violated  agreements it promised to abide by. and in the end it resulted in no one trusting them and made the coalitions against them require unconditional surrender rather then a negotitated peace. Its a great example of indiscriminate ruthlessness backfiring.

The problem is that no sane person will ever take your analogy remotely seriously.

what analogy? This was in response to Laecrafts "unethical behaviour should always lead to the best outcome in war"

[Aumata]

You put Hitler as your response despite the fact that the allied powers was also doing unethical behavior to win the war. It why your response to Laecrafts was stupid.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

I never said the allied powers didn't do anything unethical, I just can't recall a nation that more flagrantly violated  agreements it promised to abide by. and in the end it resulted in no one trusting them and made the coalitions against them require unconditional surrender rather then a negotitated peace. Its a great example of indiscriminate ruthlessness backfiring.

The problem is that no sane person will ever take your analogy remotely seriously.

what analogy? This was in response to Laecrafts "unethical behaviour should always lead to the best outcome in war"

Except, of course, that wasn't really That wasn't Laecraft's position at all. Of course if you introduce absolutes where there were none, things get absurd.

Instead your own analogy is, well, highly suspect on a number of historical levels, starting with the context of the beginning of the war (the Soviet and Western European opportunism and abandonment of allies respectively), the start of the war (in which nearly all the liberal-democratic countries on the European peninsula were dashed), and the fact that victory over the ****s was dependent on the Soviet Union, which was every bit as ruthless and only somewhat less murderous than the Third Reich.

In fact, it really seems your own response works against your intent when you bother to think about it.


Really, the better argument against her would have been about how many ways there are to be unethical without advantage, and challenge her to re-adopt a more opportunistic approach.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:16 .

[Yezdigerd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Whereas the Soviet Union was...?

Well one the reasons for the Western Europe's lenience was that they saw ****germany as a bulwark against communism. Hitler made it very clear that they were the great enemy. and Britain and France would have been happy to see them bleed each other and pick up the pieces. Stalin and co understandable were less interested.

We should also remember the fates of those relatively liberal, progressive, relatively Paragon nations that stood strong before the war: France and Poland, for example.

You think they would have fared better by extensive backstabbing?

[Yezdigerd]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

what analogy? This was in response to Laecrafts "unethical behaviour should always lead to the best outcome in war"

[/quote]Except, of course, that wasn't really That wasn't Laecraft's position at all. Of course if you introduce absolutes where there were none, things get absurd.

this what he wrote :

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should
generally lead to the best outcomes. Being ethical is supposed to be its
own reward, it's supposed to make you feel good.

I illustrated how nonsensical this is by giving a real life example.

[quote]Instead your own analogy is, well, highly suspect on a number of historical levels, starting with the context of the beginning of the war (the Soviet and Western European opportunism and abandonment of allies respectively), the start of the war (in which nearly all the liberal-democratic countries on the European peninsula were dashed), and the fact that victory over the ****s was dependent on the Soviet Union, which was every bit as ruthless and only somewhat less murderous than the Third Reich. [/quote]

The point passes over you,
The reason people makes an issue about ethics, respecting done deals etc isn't that the warm glowy feeling you get in the stomach from it, but because being regarded as an opportunist have very real negative consequences. This is never as important as in war.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Whereas the Soviet Union was...?

Well one the reasons for the Western Europe's lenience was that they saw ****germany as a bulwark against communism. Hitler made it very clear that they were the great enemy. and Britain and France would have been happy to see them bleed each other and pick up the pieces. Stalin and co understandable were less interested.

Which really didn't answer the question, but I'll assume you found it too vague rather than deliberatly avoided it.

Was the Soviet Union, which was indisputably not as bad as the Third Reich, Paragon or Renegade?

We should also remember the fates of those relatively liberal, progressive, relatively Paragon nations that stood strong before the war: France and Poland, for example.

You think they would have fared better by extensive backstabbing?

They certainly didn't succede in the war by virute of compromise and trust in the integrity and good nature of others. There are certainly times to be uncompromising... and much has been written about how a certain Austrian could have been stopped much eariler had not as many compromises and leniancies been allowed.


Of course, this idea that Paragon never backstab and that it's some distinctly Renegade thing to do also needs to go, since there's more than enough betrayals of trust by Paragons as well. You certainly weren't acting in the Council's expectations with the Rachni, fulfilling the Alliance's belief in your duty to Humanity when you risked the galaxy and threw Alliance ships away to rescue the Council, committing purjury to the Migrant Fleet's highest officers when you were tasked to find the truth, and blowing the base certainly wasn't keeping with the anti-Reaper partnership with Cerberus.

Nor is the Renegade spectrum defined by betrayal at every opportunity either.

Perhaps you should search for a word that better describes the dynamic at play. One that distinguishes why the Paragons sometimes betray trust for Paragon reasons, and Renegades do so for Renegade reasons.

[The Elder King]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Whereas the Soviet Union was...?

Well one the reasons for the Western Europe's lenience was that they saw ****germany as a bulwark against communism. Hitler made it very clear that they were the great enemy. and Britain and France would have been happy to see them bleed each other and pick up the pieces. Stalin and co understandable were less interested.

Not exactly. Their governments were just stupid to believe that Germany wouldn't break the peace. Hitler's propaganda affected Germany people. Even Mussolini at first was against Hitler. He decided to side with him because he couldn't expand the colonies in Africa without breaking the peace.
And while Germany built up its army, France and England decided to put less effort on the army. They never considered Hitler useful. The Soviet Union didn't seem that dangerous before the war.
Btw, I wouldn't define The Allies that paragon. We shouldn't forget Dresda, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:35 .

[The Elder King]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which really didn't answer the question, but I'll assume you found it too vague rather than deliberatly avoided it.

Was the Soviet Union, which was indisputably not as bad as the Third Reich, Paragon or Renegade?

I'd say Renegade, though I wouldn't define the USA (or The Allies) as Paragon neither.

Modifié par hhh89, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:35 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

what analogy? This was in response to Laecrafts "unethical behaviour should always lead to the best outcome in war"

Except, of course, that wasn't really That wasn't Laecraft's position at all. Of course if you introduce absolutes where there were none, things get absurd.

this what he wrote :

I agree with OP that realistically, unethical choices during war should
generally lead to the best outcomes. Being ethical is supposed to be its
own reward, it's supposed to make you feel good.

I illustrated how nonsensical this is by giving a real life example.

You can quote the very words that make no claim to absolutes, and say that Laecraft made an absolute. And then you can ignore the context of the words (conduct in a war), and misinterpret them entirely. And then you give an example that doesn't even refute what you think it refutes and is so historically inacurate as to be laughable.

Laecraft's argument is flawed, but your counterargument is inept.

The point passes over you,

The actual history passes beneath you, the way you trod on it. History minors and majors weep.

The reason people makes an issue about ethics, respecting done deals etc isn't that the warm glowy feeling you get in the stomach from it, but because being regarded as an opportunist have very real negative consequences. This is never as important as in war.

And yet, for some strange reasons, opportunists are the ones who gain power, hold power, and keep power. For some reason the powers that overthrew the Third Reich were other opportunists, empires and hegemons who had made their strengh seeking their own advantage, often at the significant cost of others. A tiny island that ruled the largest colonial empire of its time. A paranoid police state that murdered millions by execution and starvation. A self-absorbed continental power which barely recognized or cared what it did to its southern hemisphere and would later reach across the world.

Could it possibly be that opportunism isn't, in and of itself, a crippling flaw towards progress of civilization? Is it possible your analogy lacked consideration of the underlying reasons for why the Third Reich was opposed, confusing an over-extension of greed and desire with a refutation of self-interest as a whole? Could your relation of cause and effect be ignorant and misaimed, that the Nazis were not opposed for the conduct in the pursuit of war but rather for the fact that they simply started wars in the first place regardless of how they conducted them?


The answer, to all of these, is yes.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 24 décembre 2011 - 02:50 .

[Dean_the_Young]

hhh89 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which really didn't answer the question, but I'll assume you found it too vague rather than deliberatly avoided it.

Was the Soviet Union, which was indisputably not as bad as the Third Reich, Paragon or Renegade?

I'd say Renegade, though I wouldn't define the USA (or The Allies) as Paragon neither.

Who knows. Maybe starvation blockades and WMD strikes are Paragon.