1127 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Okay, credibility and realism aren't the only things that create immersion.

Because in that case, anyone that ever played a fantasy game wouldn't feel immersed.

False. Fantastical universeses can be believable. You're confusing beleviabiltiy with realism. While realism is by defenition believable, believable settings don't have to be real.

I guess your'e misinterpreting the wrold "realistic" and "realism".
It usually means to try to copy real life in every aspect...altough its' often used in the same context and believability.


Believabiltiy (versimilitude) is about the little things. How characters act. How things work. It's adding elements of realism into fantastical. Making explanations that make general sense and don't conflict with some base understandings of how the world works.

Take a look at how various seting tacklevariosu things. Like magic. How does it work? Where does the power come from?  You'll find different explanations and some make more sense than others. They feel more solid.

Or for example, the consequence of adding fantastical elements. Like magic. Dragon Age does this right, as how the world reacts to magic and mages is very believable - as it follows the human nature perfectly.

Not to mention that it has nothing to do with the maturity of the setting. No, that would lie in the nature of the characters that inhabits that particular universe.

Believalbe behavior and consequences are in essense more serious adn down-to-earth. They are more credible, and since unrestricted fantasy is generally considered immature...

Besides, Mass Effect rejected all attempts at being realistic a long time ago, because I doubt any real government would allow a potential coup like the one after the battle of the Citadel go without response or that they would create agents like the Spectres that can disobey any law just for the sake of maintaining law and order without running over any bumps in the road. The laws weren't written to be dismissed so quickly.

The glaring plot/story/setting flaws are exactly why I want for ME to get back on the right track.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 décembre 2011 - 12:43 .

[Someone With Mass]

I found it very hard to show any sort of compassion or sympathy for the humans in Mass Effect, because they essentially got everything they want on a silver platter and don't know when to stop until they're way in over their heads.

Not only do I find them to be spoiled, I find the majority of them to be extremely unlikable because of their sheer ignorance, and yet they carve for more.

This is something I saw pretty quick in the games too, so I don't really want it to have a more immersible feel when it comes to the human conflicts. There practically are no conflicts that I care about.

Colonists getting attacked on the fringes of Terminus space? Completely their own fault. They knew the risks and still departed from Alliance space.

Why humanity had no Spectres yet in ME1 and weren't given as much power and freedom as the other three races? Dude, it's only been 30 years. Your technological, political and social advancements have skyrocketed since you discovered that Prothean archive on Mars and you've achieved more in less than half a century than other races have for thousands of years. Be very grateful of what you have.

That's why I don't really care if it tries to display any kind of realism when dealing with the humans in Mass Effect. There's no way for me to really connect with them anyway.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Drone223 wrote...

Yet another PvR thread, you continue to amaze (sp) me BSN

I am not a renegade.. I'm actually a almsot full paragon
However, there are a few instances where the renegade choice is clearly the more sensible one. And that's what I go after. Damn the labels, full speed ahead!

Say Lotion, could you please fill in a list with your 'logical choices' like I did earlier? I'm curious, because in every single thread, you sound like a parrot of Saphra Deden, who is totally ruthless and pretty much completely renegade with all the major choices.

Apperances can deceive. Peopel seem to mistake me for a Renegade/BioHater because of the thread I pop into.
When there was talk of bad writing in ME2 I was branded a hater. Because if I love the game for what it did right and hate it for what it did wrong and I stick to the topic, I'm a hater apprenlty.

Same here. The CB is the most talked about choice, so as I take the renegade side, it is assume I am a total renegade.

Now, I would be liyng if I said I always go for the most logical choice. Sometimes (less serious choices mostly) I just wanna do something stupid or indulge myself. That isn' my canon playtrough tough.

For example, I scappred legion. Not because it was smart, but becasue I hate geth.

My logical choices in Mass Effect:

ME1:
- Kill Fist (Ren): Fist is a scumbag. There is no reason to let him go freely.
- Save Feros colonists (Par): Humans have to help each other, because no one else will.
- Kill Shaila (Ren): She was indoctrinated, possibly still is. Too risky to let her stay with the Feros colonists.
- Save Rachni Queen (Par): She could become a valuable ally against the reapers.
- Kill Balak (Ren): He's obviously way too dangerous to let him go.
- Focus on Sovereign (Neutral): Killing Sovereign is obviously the highest priority.

ME2:
- Keep genophage cure data (Par): We need the krogan at their best against the reapers.
- Rewrite heretic geth (Par): With Legion, the geth are valuable ally against the reapers, thus more geth = better.
- Advocate peace between the quarians and geth (Par): We need every species focussed on the reapers.
- Stop project Overlord (Par): With Legion and his geth as our ally, Overlord becomes counter-productive.
- Keep Collector base (Ren): Even when you don't trust TIM, you can't deny that this base might contain valuable intel on the reapers.

My list is almost the same.

The only difference in Overlord (didn't do the Legion quest yet. And geth can be re-written, it could backfire, so better have a backup) and Shalia (she's just one Asari. The damage she could do would be minimal, so I gave her the benefiot of the doubt)


F'course, my canon shep always does everything he can to destroy the Geth.
I'd destroy EDI if hte game would let me...

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 décembre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Believalbe behavior and consequences are in essense more serious adn down-to-earth. They are more credible, and since unrestricted fantasy is generally considered immature...

By who? You?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Believalbe behavior and consequences are in essence more serious adn down-to-earth. They are more credible, and since unrestricted fantasy is generally considered immature...

By who? You?

General public.

By defintion, My Little Pony is fantasy. Little Red Riding Hood is fantasy.


But that's beside hte point. Point is, a more carefully rafted and believable universe shows. Less polot hols. Less WTF moments. It feels more tight. It feels more real.

Case in point:
Dungeons and Dragons move vs. Lord of the Rings. Which feels more "real"?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Lumikki wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope. Speaking logicly, .....

What seem logical to you aren't allways same to others. Logic is based every persons own values as how they see everyting in the life and how they think something should be.

So, what you argue is you own perspective vs someones else perspective. Right? Meaning it seem logical to you...

Only if you base your own logic on nothing but perceptiosn and refuse to acknowledge they are onyl perceptions.

I'm talking numbers here. Proven facts. And basic human behavior.

Most arguments exist because person doesn't accept others perspectives to look something. Meaning you see something different ways and don't think other way is right, because it doesn't fit in your own values how you see things or want them to be. How ever, others may not share same values than you, so they argue back agaist your values. What cause neverending argument, because different values in life.

Only way get to pass it, is accepting that someone else just doesn't share same point of view and you can't change others opinions. Meaning no-one can pass they own values of life like they are fact of life to everyone. Point been, what seem logical to you, may not be logical to someone else, because they different way seeing things. 

"Different way of seeig things"?
You mean "wrong way fo seeing things". Because not all perspectives are equally valid.

This whole "everyone/nobody is right/wrong" mentality is for losers. People who know they can't with with arguments, so insted they just try to not loose either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

BellaStrega wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

In all these discussion, not once has anyone yet managed to prove me wrong on the reaper advantages arguments. And if you cannot debunk that, then you cannot claim that we have any credible chance of wining this war.
And if we cannot win this war, then we have to grab ever opportunity to try and remove those advantages, no matter how remote (and the CB is anything but remote).

This is because you do not pay attention to nor apparently understand what other people are saying. You just say "nope, you're wrong" and post the same arguments over and over. You won't see any arguments that contradict your cherished beliefs because you do not wish to see them. The fault is not with the points people bring to you, it's in your own ideological rigidity over a video game.

No, I don not see them because there aren't any.
I aks again - debunk them..
Show me how we cna win agaisnt the reapers.
I provided numbers..from the codex..from the game. I can re-post it if yo uwant.

As for Cerberus shooting itself in the foot: It is axiomatic that anyone intended to do large scale work on a Reaper installation walked in with guns pointed at their feet. It's only a matter of when the trigger goes off. If you paid attention to the games, you would be aware of this. Every large scale operation involving Reaper technology - Bahak, the Derelict, Sovereign - result in mass indoctrination, and sometimes eventual huskification of the people working on that technology. The second attempt to study and understand Sovereign resulted in Sovereign attacking the Citadel with a geth fleet at its back. Are you really sure that would never happen with the Collector Base?

I'ts not axiomatic.
Not all research of repaer tech ended in indoctrination. But all researhc DID yield cruicial boons.
Obviously not all reaper tech indoctrinates, as there seem to be specific indoctrination devices.

Is there a danger of indoctrination in workign with teh reaper base? Yes.
But it's a risk one has to take, as once the reapers come you're gonna be exposed to indoctrination AYNWAY. It's unavoidable. After the derelict reaper, I expect better security measures, but that's no guarantee.

Either way, the base is cerberus hands is less of a threat (by an order of magnitude) then us facing the reapers as it is.

And no, there really is not enough information to decide whether or not it's possible to fight the Reapers. Yes, Sovereign was difficult to stop. No, we don't know what all of the Reapers are like and they may not all be the same kind of monsters that Sovereign was. We do know that in order to take on the intelligent spacefaring races in each cycle that Reapers shut down the Mass Relays, to better divide and conquer. Surely that wouldn't be necessary if they were undefeatable. Sovereign was a surprise attack. Surprise attacks have a tendency to be extremely damaging before anyone can react. And finally, Sovereign was backed by a geth fleet, which no doubt had a lot to do with how dangerous the attack was.

There is enough information. But (to throw your words back at you) you jsut don't want to see.
I don't even have to assume all are like Sovering. That some are is enough.

"Our numbers will darken the sky of every world" - does that seems to you like there's only a few of them? After they've been around for millions of years? With the harvested resources of an entire galaxy (each cycle), and given the amount of ships the races have, assuming reapers have millions of ships is perfectly valid.

As to "they wouldn't shut down the relays if they didn't need to". Nope. It just makes things easier. Why on earth would any sensible race make things harder when they can make it easier?

***
Sovereigns attack on the Citadel fleet was a surprise. You're talking about the initial attack onthe Citadel. But sicne Sovereign made abee-line for the Citadel wihout fireing a shot, and hte citadel fleet was busy with the geth, it doesn't really provide much interms of reaper poeer.

I'm taking on the attakc of 5th Fleet on Sovereign - which was also a surprise
Sovereign was caught alone, with it's pants down.
It was immobile and couldn't bring all of it's guns to bear, busy with hacking the Citadel, no support from the geth and attacked by a whole, fresh fleet. And it still was tearing the fleet apart so bad, they wanted to retreat! The fleeet that had dreadnoughts!
And when it was brought down it was because of the overload caused by Sheppard. It was tanking the firepwoer of an entire fleet for an eternity. And without Shepaprd it would have continued to do so for a lot longer (confirmed by devs).

So if Sovereign in such utterly unfavorable conditions can do that, what could it cause in a clean fight?
From the codex entry, it should be capable of destroying 7-9 ship every few seconds.

Then will you ignore the scenario in which repaers retreat when shields are low? Ya know, the one also supported by codex entires where calculations come back as complte disaster for council races, even in an ambush scenario?

If you need a refresher - Reapers are faster, have better FTL, better sensors. Ship in FTL cannot be tracked.
Reaper can tank an entire fleet for at least a minute. It can destroy several ships every few seconds.
Do the math.

Now, see, those paragraphs? I make actual arguments in them on the basis of material provided in the books and games. Anyone could play these games and come to similar conclusions because none of this information is cryptic and hidden. You may not agree with it, but this does not mean that you possess the only possible truth.

Now see above, how I ripped your arguments to shreads?

And please, knock it off with the "logic." Your arguments are not that logical - you mostly say "No, you're wrong," state the opposite of what you're trying to refute, and call it logical. Even if your logic were valid, that does not mean that the arguments you use logic to support are also valid. There's a phrase - "garbage in, garbage out." If your baseline data is rubbish, then any logical conclusions you derive from that data is rubbish.

Which is precisely why your argumetns fail. As I proven above.

And the idea that anyone could safely tame a Reaper ship or installation without a proper understanding of just what indoctrination  is, is - bluntly - rubbish.

And you plan to gain understanding of indoctrination exactly how? By avoiding it?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Believabiltiy (versimilitude) is about the little things. How characters act. How things work. It's adding elements of realism into fantastical. Making explanations that make general sense and don't conflict with some base understandings of how the world works.

Take a look at how various seting tacklevariosu things. Like magic. How does it work? Where does the power come from?  You'll find different explanations and some make more sense than others. They feel more solid.

This. For example in a Fantasy Universe there is 10 substances/matter which have magical effects and they surpass reality.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...


Sure it is. Paragonism reeks of blind moral idealism and that is a flaw in any walk of life. Shep actually gets called on it plenty of times through the game: by Tela Vasir, Mordin, TIM, Capt. Bailey... just off the top of my head.

And yet, blind or not, Shepard doesn't walk into any significant troubles. People berate Paragon-ism, but Paragon Shepard comes out smelling like a rose and proving him or herself correct in all those cases.

As for failure YES it has happened - most notably where Shep basically fails Zaeed's LM if taking the paragon path. Whether or not you get his loyalty is up to Zaeed, and it's up there in the 90+% range for persuation score so it's really damn hard to obtain. And if the leaks are true, those lives were basically saved for nothing.

There is no 90% score requirement for any check: all persuasion checks in the game are weighted by when you can attempt them. If you start the Zaeed loyalty mission early, it's easy. Infact, if you do the Zaeed loyalty mission as soon as you pick up Zaeed, you can make the check with just the carryover import points. When the chief consequence of a Paragon decision can be outright overruled by trivial paragonism, but not even a Renegade check, that's a heavily schewed delimma.

Not, mind you, that failing Zaeed's LM actually carries any consequence of weight: even unloyal he's stronger at holding the line than nearly all the rest of the team loyal, there's only a few ambient dialogue changes, and for the rest of ME2 and even by the ME3 spoilers the galaxy in which Vido was alive is otherwise exactly the same in which he died.

And, I'm willing to make a strong wager it will happen again in ME3.

A paragon out for a Paragon consequence without an equivalent Renegade out in a Renegade consequence? (Looking at you, Tali.)

Ugh. Spare me your signature "baffle 'em with smart-sounding bullshiet" routine. 


*edit* - qualifier

How about  simple truth? None of that happened as you portray it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 décembre 2011 - 02:44 .

[Yezdigerd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

edit: Killing Fist is murder, and you aren't above the law yet.  The odds of you being prosecuted aren't high, but he's not really worth it.

You know what's far more relevant to any legalistic argument? Shooting a dozen people to get to Fist, and shooting a half-dozen more on the way out.

Fist is a rounding error.

Really weak argument.Two wrongs doesn't make one right. The game require you to assault the Nightclub, the guards will kill you if you don't kill them. You can at least argue self-defence in a trial.
The lynching of Fist is just that and unlike the assault of the Night club it's a player's choice. In a trial your only recourse could be perjury. Also the reason to kill him is trivally stupid. He is a hired goon killing him doesnt give Shepard any practical benefits and it certainly will have no impact on galactic goonery. All that it can  accomplish is giving you a legal headache. (it's quite amusing how many "pragmatic" renegade decisions consists of making problem out of nothing, for no reason.)

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 20 décembre 2011 - 03:00 .

[Lumikki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Different way of seeig things"?
You mean "wrong way fo seeing things". Because not all perspectives are equally valid.

Who desides who's perspectives are more valid? You?

This whole "everyone/nobody is right/wrong" mentality is for losers. People who know they can't with with arguments, so insted they just try to not loose either.

That's the hole point, you are just trying to say you are right no matter what. I consider losers those who doesn't understand anyting else than they own perspectives. Notice I did not say have to agree with other perspectives. Thinking that you own perspective is allways right is first sign of issues.

[Labrev]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You couldn't properly asses risk/reward and prioritize if your life depended on it.

We've been over this before, and your argument have ben lacking in proper support. You failed to provide any evidence TIM woudl turn agaist the races of the galaxy, failed to even provide proper motivation; you failed ot provide any concrete plan on how to defeat reapers or demonstrate that it's even possible to defeat them.
You have uttery faield to debunk my analysis of the reaper advantages and the disproportionate balance of power.

So, untill you properly adress those points, your theories have no legs to stand on.

I've prodivided evidence at every turn, and you either ignore or outright deny them (often without saying anything more than simply "no") while your own arguments are rife with contradiction (The C-Base is an advancement in technology jumping us centuries forward and therein poses a viable weapon against the Reapers, but it's not possibly a danger in the wrong hands - just to name one of many such contradictions).

Since it all obviously falls on deaf ears, I'm not going down this road again.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 20 décembre 2011 - 03:43 .

[Labrev]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...


Sure it is. Paragonism reeks of blind moral idealism and that is a flaw in any walk of life. Shep actually gets called on it plenty of times through the game: by Tela Vasir, Mordin, TIM, Capt. Bailey... just off the top of my head.

And yet, blind or not, Shepard doesn't walk into any significant troubles. People berate Paragon-ism, but Paragon Shepard comes out smelling like a rose and proving him or herself correct in all those cases.

What are we talking about that has Shepard walking into no significant trouble?

Is it about saving the DA? Because it was made clear at that time that the risk involved was negligible, and no signficant advantage/disadvantage has come of it. Is it about unleashing the rachni-queen? Because a random NPC cameo does not a complete final outcome make.

Convenient to cite the decisions as examples, seeing as the decisions have hardly manifested yet if at all..

There is no 90% score requirement for any check: all persuasion checks in the game are weighted by when you can attempt them. If you start the Zaeed loyalty mission early, it's easy. Infact, if you do the Zaeed loyalty mission as soon as you pick up Zaeed, you can make the check with just the carryover import points. When the chief consequence of a Paragon decision can be outright overruled by trivial paragonism, but not even a Renegade check, that's a heavily schewed delimma.

 

I know how the system works. Guess what, if you do anything early with the import bonus in hand, practically every persuade is attainable. For many players playing without an import, or on a platform that makes importing impossible, it's up there with Miranda/Jack fight, Samara/Morinth, Vasir hostage morality-disputes in difficulty to settle. This requires metaknowledge anyway. If you game the system, every persuade can be had, but now you're not actually playing in a manner you normally would anyway. Under normal circumstances, it's hard to get.

Doesn't change the fact that Shepard failed the mission.

Not, mind you, that failing Zaeed's LM actually carries any consequence of weight: even unloyal he's stronger at holding the line than nearly all the rest of the team loyal, there's only a few ambient dialogue changes, and for the rest of ME2 and even by the ME3 spoilers the galaxy in which Vido was alive is otherwise exactly the same in which he died.

So? Not all decision-making through the game is made equal, we all know that at this point.

The ME3 spoilers also negated the one redeeming quality of Shepard failing the mission, saved lives.

And, I'm willing to make a strong wager it will happen again in ME3.

No, a Paragon decision backfiring.

How about  simple truth? None of that happened as you portray it.

Great, another Lotion Sarronar. (sp?)

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 20 décembre 2011 - 03:45 .

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

The choice is a minor choice and from wat we saw in ME2, there is no real harm in letting Fist go. There is also no real harm in killing Fist (as evident by the lack of any trail and no legal actions taken against you). But you don't know that at the time in ME1. So I'd say better be save than sorry and just kill the bastard. There is no need to worry about killing Fist, for all the reasons I mentioned above.

What ever choice you make related Fist, is Shepards choice as what you Shepard is about. If you play Shepard what shoot first and ask questions later, then most obvious choice is kill Fist. If you play your Shepard like compassion person who only kills when have to, then the obvious choice is let Fist go. That's what choices give for players, allow us fullfil the role.

It's not about did you do optimal choice as player, it's about your Shepard did the best choices based what You Shepards is all about. Meaning trying to do right choice. What is the right choices isn't same to every Shepard.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 03:56 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Hah Yes Reapers wrote...


What are we talking about that has Shepard walking into no significant trouble?[/quote]The part where all results later in ME1, during ME2, and even spoilers about ME3 show no more trouble for the Paragons than the Renegades.
[quote]
Is it about saving the DA? Because it was made clear at that time that the risk involved was negligible, and no signficant advantage/disadvantage has come of it. [/quote]The Destiny Ascension choice was hardly a 'no risk' setup: it
was 'throw away reinforcements that would be fighting Sovereign', with
the result of failure being galactic extinction. That's heavy risk, but
the prize...

Mind you, had they actually done anything with the new Council in ME2, I'd be a firm supporter of the choice. As they were treated, however, I'd have just as soon have a case where no matter what you chose, the Council died, but the galaxy would remember what you tried to do.

[quote]
Is it about unleashing the rachni-queen? Because a random NPC cameo does not a complete final outcome make.[/quote]Genre savy, and spoilers, however, do strongly tell us which way it's going.

Frankly you could make any number of 'ME3 hasn't come out, so you can't say anything' arguments. You could, but it would be foolish in the face of foreshadowing and prior patterns.



[quote]I know how the system works. Guess what, if you do anything early with the import bonus in hand, practically every persuade is attainable. For many players playing without an import, or on a platform that makes importing impossible, it's up there with Miranda/Jack fight, Samara/Morinth, Vasir hostage morality-disputes in difficulty to settle.[/quote]Actually, it's not. It's a mid-low persuade check.

Just more deliciously, it's a mid-low Paragon check to counter the paragon 'consequence'. Not even a Renegade equivalent.
[quote]
Doesn't change the fact that Shepard failed the mission.[/quote]Except Shepard didn't. Paragon Shepard's mission was to save the people. Zaeed failed his mission, for revenge.

You could say that 'doesn't change the fact that Vido got away', but that's irrelevant because Vido getting away does not, in fact, have any major consequence. The difference between Zaeed loyal and Zaeed unloyal is one point on the Hold the Line score and that unloyal characters die if you take them to the baby Reaper: Loyal Zaeed is never a specialist regardless, and uneven Unloyal Zaeed is better at holding the line than everyone but Garrus and Grunt.
[quote]
So? Not all decision-making through the game is made equal, we all know that at this point.[/quote]Which is the point I've been arguing. Glad we agree.


[quote]
The ME3 spoilers also negated the one redeeming quality of Shepard failing the mission, saved lives.[/quote]Not from the spoilers I've seen.

[quote]
[quote]And, I'm willing to make a strong wager it will happen again in ME3.[/quote]

No, a Paragon decision backfiring.[/quote]Did you just quote and argue with yourself?

[quote]
[quote]How about  simple truth? None of that happened as you portray it.[/quote]

Great, another Lotion Sarronar. (sp?)
[/quote]And there you go again.

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

LoL. 

Sure, renegades are "more logical"... when they're not being giant space-arses for the lulz, or Cerberus bootlickers.   So in ME2, that would be about 20% to 25% of the total renegade options.  Until Bioware makes up their mind what "renegade" means, there's no point. 

Then again, my impression from these threads is that some minority portion of the outright Renegade players actually do what to be able to be a lulzy juvenille spacedouche, and still be the Big Damn Hero Shepard that everyone respects and loves -- they think it's cool being a dick to people around them for some reason, but don't want to pay the piper later.  In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too, just as Paragon players are so often accused of. 

Personally, I don't give a damn about Paragon and Renegade, and do what I can to avoid the whole thing and just play the Shep I'm playing.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 décembre 2011 - 04:10 .

[Wulfram]

Luc0s wrote...

Your argument is even weaker.

There are no eye-witnesses around when you shoot Fist (except your own squad), so no one is there to tell what happened between you and Fist.

Even if Shepard was set on trail for killing Fist, Shepard could simply say: "Hey, that guy made me do it. He had 2 turrents shooting at me and he himself also tried to kill me. I merely shot him out of self-defense."

Putting your squad in a position where they have to lie to cover up your crimes isn't great leadership.  Plus Shepard has only just met Ashley and Garrus, so you're taking a pretty big risk that they'll be OK with murder.  Not to mention the possibility of some sort of recording device being around.

Really, Shepard wouldn't even be lying when he'd say that to the judge, because it's true. Sure, Fist surrendered, but no one needs to know that. Besides: Do you honestly think anyone would care enough about Fist's death to start an actual investigation against Shepard? Heck, I bet everyone is glad that scumbag is gone.

There are no doubt plenty of people who would like to embarrass the Alliance and their wannabe Spectre.  Like Saren, and his allies.

Plus the whole murder is wrong thing.

The choice is a minor choice and from wat we saw in ME2, there is no real harm in letting Fist go. There is also no real harm in killing Fist (as evident by the lack of any trail and no legal actions taken against you). But you don't know that at the time in ME1. So I'd say better be save than sorry and just kill the bastard. There is no need to worry about killing Fist, for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Yes, it's not a major choice, and Shepard gets away with it just like they get away with everything else.  But from a pragmatic point of view, you're taking a risk for no real reward except to Shepard's sense of justice.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 décembre 2011 - 03:58 .

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

Sure, I fully agree that letting Fist go is a valid choice if you're a compassionate Shepard. But I was not talking about whether or not a choice is valid or not, I was talking about which choices (in my opinion) are the most LOGICAL choices to make.

In my opinion, killing Fist (or better, let Wrex do it), is the most logical thing to do.

Yes, but what's logical choice to make is based what kind of person you are in real life. Meaning you values and what you are is affecting as what you see as most locical choice. Example how much you value other peoples life would affect decission making related taking others life.

You could say that, because this and that it's more locical choice. But every reason what you make is filtered and colored by what you are and how you want to see it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 04:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

You'd still stand accused of conspiracy and complicity in Fist's death.