1127 réponses à ce sujet

[xentar]

Hmm, let's see... Punching a reporter in the face. Totally logical and professional.

[BellaStrega]

xentar wrote...

Hmm, let's see... Punching a reporter in the face. Totally logical and professional.

Exactly. Also, encouraging that Elcor shopkeeper to keep the Quarian under his, er, thumb.

And of course, logical and unemotional types are known for sneering, "big stupid jellyfish."

Of course, there are bigger decisions - it's probably logical to kill Samara and recruit Morinth if you have reason to suspect that Samara will kill you, which is likely if you're all Renegade, all the time.

And here's 16 minutes combined of logical, unemotional decisions:




Okay, to be fair, those aren't all Renegade responses, but even so.

Modifié par BellaStrega, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[AlexXIV]

xentar wrote...

Hmm, let's see... Punching a reporter in the face. Totally logical and professional.

Paragon choices are as logical as renegade choices. The only difference is that the one side believes that burning bridges is the safe road and the other side thinks building bridges is the safe road. The only thing is that if you burn a bridge you know that nothing is going to cross it anymore. If you build a bridge, you don't know what is comming across. So you can argue that burning bridges is good because it won't get you into trouble anymore, and also that building bridges is good because you may get support you need. This is why people keep argueing in circles. You can't say which is the better, more logical, strategic choice. Because they are just using different logic and strategy. You could as well argue about whether shooting people is better than argueing with people. Sometimes the one will prove to be better and sometimes the other. Depending on the situation.

[BellaStrega]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

^ love those! They're quite funny.

Oh, yeah. They're great.

[Ravensword]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades should get most of the best outcomes because they approach their decisions logically. Paragons should often suffer for giving into emotion and weakness.

Right, b/c you never give into emotion.

Case in point (from another thread just 10 minutes ago):

Saphra Deden wrote...

Do you just mash your keyboard randomly? Amazing how it works though. I mean it almost seems like I'm
talking to a real person sometimes.

[BellaStrega]

AlexXIV wrote...

Paragon choices are as logical as renegade choices. The only difference is that the one side believes that burning bridges is the safe road and the other side thinks building bridges is the safe road. The only thing is that if you burn a bridge you know that nothing is going to cross it anymore. If you build a bridge, you don't know what is comming across. So you can argue that burning bridges is good because it won't get you into trouble anymore, and also that building bridges is good because you may get support you need. This is why people keep argueing in circles. You can't say which is the better, more logical, strategic choice. Because they are just using different logic and strategy. You could as well argue about whether shooting people is better than argueing with people. Sometimes the one will prove to be better and sometimes the other. Depending on the situation.

I like your analysis, and the cut of your jib.

I don't care if anyone agrees with my choices (although I've played Renegade and Paragon). I just think it's a bit ridiculous to stake one set of choices off as "the only logical decisions of any merit."

[Ravensword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades
should get most of the best outcomes because they approach their
decisions logically. Paragons should often suffer for giving into
emotion and weakness.

Right, b/c you never give into emotion.

Nope, never.

You're amusing arguments would suggest otherwise.

[Ravensword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades
should get most of the best outcomes because they approach their
decisions logically. Paragons should often suffer for giving into
emotion and weakness.

Right, b/c you never give into emotion.

Nope, never.

You're amusing arguments would suggest otherwise.

It was an observation devoid of any emotion.

Ah. I meant to say when you argue w/ peo9ple for extended periods of time, you seem to get angrier by the minute. Especially, when you're arguing w/ Cheez.

[BellaStrega]

Saphra Deden wrote...

BellaStrega wrote...

This statement is factually inaccurate.

No it isn't.

This is not a compelling argument.

Modifié par BellaStrega, 19 décembre 2011 - 09:47 .

[Sabotin]

Wouldn't it take from the importance of choices if they had random effects? I mean even if you're trying to stick 100% on one side, there's a fairly large chance that without a walkthrough you will not get all "brownie points", simply because your opinion of what is more paragon or renegade my vary from what the developers thought. On a first playthrough (at least for me) it's guaranteed that there will be a few choices with consequences I don't agree with. That's enough variation for a less artificial feel (again, for me).

[BellaStrega]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I. Know.

My first post in this thread was the same.

I've said numerous times Paragon and Renegade should be relatively balanced and have logical consquences for decisions (both good and bad).  I was poking fun, but the reaction to my post is... unsurprising.

Ah, never mind then.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

“Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps.” - Great Professor Mordin Solus

Both should have their advantageous ... ME3 will show how Bioware can handle that.

[CroGamer002]

Dragon XIX wrote...

Don't worry op, Bioware almost never changes the outcome eitherway.

And you say that because?