529 réponses à ce sujet

[ddv.rsa]

AlexXIV wrote...

Also, you're being delusional. If you read the script before or know spoilers you will not play the game in the same way as you played without knowing it. Because your decision making process changes.

The script just affirms what we all already knew but didn't want to admit: paragon > renegade.

Unless you are determined to punish yourself, you should import a save from ME1 having made every possible paragon decision.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

*snip*

There is no admiral in the field. Sheppard seems to know more about the situation then Hackeet, who at that point is beyond the relay.
IIRC; Hackett ASKED for recomendation. Sheppard din't order anything.

*snip*

Becase he wasn0t to get rid of Shep?
Becase another pair of hands onthe consoel can help him hack faster?
Because he wants to get Vigils Data file out of the console to speed up the override?

Also, Sovereign is tough. Really tough. But not invincible. Wrapping things up before the Citadel fleet joins the 5th Fleet or before other reinforcement arrive would be a smart thing.
So again, getting things done fast may be important.

Maybe for you.
I'm perfectly capable of roleplaying and deliberatly removing data from my characters decision-making process.

1) Shep is talking to Joker, not Hackett. Hackett orders the fleet to stay on Sovereign when the Reaper is ripping apart the Alliance fleet one by one. Thought I admit Shepard's paragon choice of words sucks. 'Save the Council at any costs' Even on the costs of losing? Not really. That's just the bad/cheesy writing and I mostly try to ignore it. I for one save the Council because it is not hard and doesn't endanger the war effort.

2) You said yourself, Sovereign could have lasted much longer without fighting Shepard. So he could take it slowly and destroy the Alliance fleet while hacking the Citadel. Or he tries to take on Shepard to speed up, but risks getting killed and therefore losing it all. Honestly, what would your choice have been? Because after Shep kills Sovereign he is immobilized and the Alliance hits it with everything they have. Anyway, point being, saving the DA happens even before the arms of the Citadel open. So they are not losing time. Firepower maybe because they lost ships defending the DA. But anyway, the deciding factor is Sovereign fighting Shepard and losing. Also I don't really see anything in the game (not codex or dev information) that hints that the DA is immobile or unable to shoot after she is saved. After all, after the Alliance saving it, it should be just as far from Sovereign as the Alliance ships.

3) No comment.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 01:53 .

[AlexXIV]

ddv.rsa wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Also, you're being delusional. If you read the script before or know spoilers you will not play the game in the same way as you played without knowing it. Because your decision making process changes.

The script just affirms what we all already knew but didn't want to admit: paragon > renegade.

Unless you are determined to punish yourself, you should import a save from ME1 having made every possible paragon decision.

I don't know the script but I don't need to do that. All my big decisions have been paragon decisions. I once tried a renegade playthrough but didn't get far. I am just not one for jerk decisions. Now and then ok, for someone who really deserves it. But in general it ruins game.

[GodWood]

The major renegade decisions aren't 'jerk decisions' though.

[AlexXIV]

GodWood wrote...

The major renegade decisions aren't 'jerk decisions' though.

Well the situation with the DA is ambigious. Concentrate fire on Sovereign is probably the priority and should be picked. But there is the deal with the DA. You lose the council and their ship and probably other ships that accompany/guard the council. Also you are probably more likely to get assistance from any Council ship that can help if you save the DA instead of just letting it be destroyed. But that's a tactical decision anyway, and Shepard can only hear the fleet, he doesn't have a monitor or anything. Basically he is blind to the actual situation.

[GodWood]

Not to be rude but this is relevant because...? Do you see it as a jerk decision?

[ddv.rsa]

GodWood wrote...

The major renegade decisions aren't 'jerk decisions' though.

We should still know better than to think any advantage could ever come of them. Same is probably true in the Templar / Mage conflict of Dragon Age. Hint: siding with the mages is the right answer.

I finally realise that mass effect is a series with only one way to play correctly. You can try alternatives, but you'll be wrong.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 28 décembre 2011 - 02:09 .

[AlexXIV]

GodWood wrote...

Not to be rude but this is relevant because...? Do you see it as a jerk decision?

No I happened to agree with you actually. Just got a bit lengthy ...

But honestly, if I make a renegade playthrough then I don't do it half arsed. Because renegade is not my thing and if I do it at all then to see how the story ends if Shepard is a total jerk

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]AlexXIV wrote...
1) Shep is talking to Joker, not Hackett. Hackett orders the fleet to stay on Sovereign when the Reaper is ripping apart the Alliance fleet one by one. Thought I admit Shepard's paragon choice of words sucks. 'Save the Council at any costs' Even on the costs of losing? Not really. That's just the bad/cheesy writing and I mostly try to ignore it.[/quote]

And Joker is with the 5th Fleet and Hackett.

[quote]
I for one save the Council because it is not hard and doesn't endanger the war effort.[/quote][/quote]

False on both accoutns, but watevs


[quote]
2) You said yourself, Sovereign could have lasted much longer without fighting Shepard. So he could take it slowly and destroy the Alliance fleet while hacking the Citadel. [/quote]

Against the 5th fleet? Yes.
Against 5th fleet + Citadel + whatever reinforcements were coming? Hmm...

Was Shepard really that big of an gample? He's just one man.
Also, is the aftershock of hte Saren avater destruction even a regular or known thing to the reapers?


[quote]
Or he tries to take on Shepard to speed up, but risks getting killed and therefore losing it all. Honestly, what would your choice have been?[/quote]

He risk loosing it all of he takes too long too.


[quote]
Also I don't really see anything in the game (not codex or dev information) that hints that the DA is immobile or unable to shoot after she is saved. After all, after the Alliance saving it, it should be just as far from Sovereign as the Alliance ships.[/quote]

Are we playing the same game?
DA was calling for aid. It's main drive was off-line.

[GodWood]

ddv.rsa wrote...

GodWood wrote...
The major renegade decisions aren't 'jerk decisions' though.

We should still know better than to think anything good could ever come of them. Same is probably true in the Templar / Mage conflict of Dragon Age. Hint: siding with the mages is the right answer.

I finally realise that mass effect is a series with only one way to play correctly. You can try alternatives, but you'll be wrong.

Yeah, that's Bioware for ya.

Oh well, I hear the Witcher's good. I'm just going to move on to that.

[AlexXIV]

Sovereign should have known. He is a friggen Reaper. If they don't know what they are doing then ... whatever. If I recall correctly Sovereign is fighting the Alliance fleet and killing them so someone shouts to retreat then Hackett tells them to stay focused because it is their only chance. So it looks to me Sovereign was doing fine then. Also, if the DA's main drive is offline it may be fixed also if they have a main drive they probably also have a secondary? Because that's sort of suggesting it. Sure it was in trouble or slower, but it may still be as good as an average Alliance ship. Also there may be more ships with the DA to guard it or whatever. I mean you hardly see cruisers or destroyer of this size without some sort of protection against smaller faster ships.

I don't even dispute that saving the DA was the obvious thing to do. Concentrating on Sovereign may be just as good or better. I don't even know why Shep can make such a decision and why the alliance listens to him. First nobody listens and out of a sudden they let shepard play admiral and then politician when deciding who becomes Councilor. Just to then in ME2 go back to not trusting him (again). That's basically why I say it is a game. It doesn't have to make sense in every respect. Well it should probably, but it just doesn't. Like many things in many games. So I rather wonder about the writer's intention and take it as fact. If they intended saving the DA to be a morale decision rather than tactical then so be it. Because they make the games and they decide what consequenses our choices have, no matter what we personally think of them.

[hawat333]

Shepard, by the date, killed about one thousand mercenaries or so.

So I guess we can't debate the means.

[AlexXIV]

hawat333 wrote...

Shepard, by the date, killed about one thousand mercenaries or so.

So I guess we can't debate the means.

They shot first.

[ddv.rsa]

jreezy wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Yeah, that's Bioware for ya.

Oh well, I hear the Witcher's good. I'm just going to move on to that.

It didn't used to be.

Paragon / renegade is so imbalanced that in their internal notes they actually use renegade when describing the ultimate ME1/ME2 failure scenario. Bioware don't consider renegade as a viable alternative- they consider it a failure.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sovereign should have known. He is a friggen Reaper. If they don't know what they are doing then ... whatever.

On what ground do you assume that? Why should he have known? Is the Saren Avatar same as other avatars reapers used? Were other avatars destroyed under similar conditions before?
Reapers aren't omniscent.

If I recall correctly Sovereign is fighting the Alliance fleet and killing them so someone shouts to retreat then Hackett tells them to stay focused because it is their only chance. So it looks to me Sovereign was doing fine then.

It was doing fine... at that point in time. You heard of death of a thousand cuts? He's doing fine, but he knows he can't keep that up forever - epsecially since he's immobile and engaged on multiple fronts (the fleet, hacking and Shep). Sovereign is fighting with one hand tied behind his back.

Also, if the DA's main drive is offline it may be fixed also if they have a main drive they probably also have a secondary? Because that's sort of suggesting it.

You live in a magical land where huge engines of advanced starship are fixed in a few seconds with a hydro-spanner?
While we're at it, why not simply wait for a few more ships to roll out from the shipyards before we engage Sovereign?

Sure it was in trouble or slower, but it may still be as good as an average Alliance ship. Also there may be more ships with the DA to guard it or whatever. I mean you hardly see cruisers or destroyer of this size without some sort of protection against smaller faster ships.

If it's slower and already damaged, then it's not as good as an average aliance ship (of which you lost 2-3 to save it)
And if any of DA's escorts survived (doubtfull), tehy wouldnt' be in much better shape.
And there's still a problem of those ships joining the fight just beause you want them to.

That's basically why I say it is a game. It doesn't have to make sense in every respect. Well it should probably, but it just doesn't. Like many things in many games. So I rather wonder about the writer's intention and take it as fact. If they intended saving the DA to be a morale decision rather than tactical then so be it. Because they make the games and they decide what consequenses our choices have, no matter what we personally think of them.

And trying to guess a writers decision is about as pointless for arguing as everything else.
See those 10 armed thugs? I'm guessing the writers of the story of your life want you to go charge them bare-handed. Don't worry, you got character shields. You cna't die!

[Lotion Soronarr]

jreezy wrote...

I've heard about that, it's sad really. Older games that used a similar system like Jade Empire and KOTOR didn't feel one sided. After this is all over I hope BioWare corrects this mistake with their next RPG game with a "morality" system.

I don't want to see a morality systems in a RPG ever again, as long as I live.

[nitefyre410]

darkness reborn wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

Shepard, by the date, killed about one thousand mercenaries or so.

So I guess we can't debate the means.

They stole his sweet-roll.

  


I used to be a mecernary  but then I took a Shepard to the knee 



had to be done

Modifié par nitefyre410, 28 décembre 2011 - 06:22 .

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Sovereign should have known. He is a friggen Reaper. If they don't know what they are doing then ... whatever.

On what ground do you assume that? Why should he have known? Is the Saren Avatar same as other avatars reapers used? Were other avatars destroyed under similar conditions before?
Reapers aren't omniscent.

If I recall correctly Sovereign is fighting the Alliance fleet and killing them so someone shouts to retreat then Hackett tells them to stay focused because it is their only chance. So it looks to me Sovereign was doing fine then.

It was doing fine... at that point in time. You heard of death of a thousand cuts? He's doing fine, but he knows he can't keep that up forever - epsecially since he's immobile and engaged on multiple fronts (the fleet, hacking and Shep). Sovereign is fighting with one hand tied behind his back.

Also, if the DA's main drive is offline it may be fixed also if they have a main drive they probably also have a secondary? Because that's sort of suggesting it.

You live in a magical land where huge engines of advanced starship are fixed in a few seconds with a hydro-spanner?
While we're at it, why not simply wait for a few more ships to roll out from the shipyards before we engage Sovereign?

Sure it was in trouble or slower, but it may still be as good as an average Alliance ship. Also there may be more ships with the DA to guard it or whatever. I mean you hardly see cruisers or destroyer of this size without some sort of protection against smaller faster ships.

If it's slower and already damaged, then it's not as good as an average aliance ship (of which you lost 2-3 to save it)
And if any of DA's escorts survived (doubtfull), tehy wouldnt' be in much better shape.
And there's still a problem of those ships joining the fight just beause you want them to.

That's basically why I say it is a game. It doesn't have to make sense in every respect. Well it should probably, but it just doesn't. Like many things in many games. So I rather wonder about the writer's intention and take it as fact. If they intended saving the DA to be a morale decision rather than tactical then so be it. Because they make the games and they decide what consequenses our choices have, no matter what we personally think of them.

And trying to guess a writers decision is about as pointless for arguing as everything else.
See those 10 armed thugs? I'm guessing the writers of the story of your life want you to go charge them bare-handed. Don't worry, you got character shields. You cna't die!

Alright, the whole issue with saving the council or not is stupid, ok? Bioware did their worst there and the result was bad. 'Concentrate on Sovereign' should be the most responsible choice. But in ME things worked differently. Shepard could be more idealistic than Ghandi and Mother Theresa together and still win. That was the basic rule in this game, and according to this saving the Council was a save bet. Unrealistic in context with the real world, but working in context with the ME1 world. Based on the experience you make in the choices up to this point. In ME2 Bioware broke up with it. They made my hyper idealistic Shepard a 'doing everything to get results' guy. That's why he's working for Cerberus, that's why he is letting 300.000 Batarians die. Bioware reacted on fan-feedback and brushed the idealist off his socket. Maybe even because people complained about the ending of ME1. Everyone acts as if 'Save the Council at all costs' is the best option, but realistically it would be the most stupid. But realism isn't an important factor in the choices you make. And you know why? They want to make successful games, not good ones. And to make a successful game you don't need to make sense or be realistic. You just need to get alot of braindeads to buy and play your game. That's why this is a waste of time.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
Alright, the whole issue with saving the council or not is stupid, ok? Bioware did their worst there and the result was bad. 'Concentrate on Sovereign' should be the most responsible choice. But in ME things worked differently. Shepard could be more idealistic than Ghandi and Mother Theresa together and still win. That was the basic rule in this game, and according to this saving the Council was a save bet. Unrealistic in context with the real world, but working in context with the ME1 world. Based on the experience you make in the choices up to this point. In ME2 Bioware broke up with it. They made my hyper idealistic Shepard a 'doing everything to get results' guy. That's why he's working for Cerberus, that's why he is letting 300.000 Batarians die. Bioware reacted on fan-feedback and brushed the idealist off his socket. Maybe even because people complained about the ending of ME1. Everyone acts as if 'Save the Council at all costs' is the best option, but realistically it would be the most stupid. But realism isn't an important factor in the choices you make. And you know why? They want to make successful games, not good ones. And to make a successful game you don't need to make sense or be realistic. You just need to get alot of braindeads to buy and play your game. That's why this is a waste of time.

Ahh..there we go..

The "you are right, but this is a game so actually I am right " reply.

That's not a proper argument.
"It's just how Bioware does things" is not an argument for decision-making.
"In a Bioware universe, paragons always win" is not an argument for decision-making.

It doesn't work in the context of hte ME1 world because it's not an intrinsic part of the setting, neither is it rational or sensible.


But hey, by now you're so far gone I can't even see ayny point......

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Alright, the whole issue with saving the council or not is stupid, ok? Bioware did their worst there and the result was bad. 'Concentrate on Sovereign' should be the most responsible choice. But in ME things worked differently. Shepard could be more idealistic than Ghandi and Mother Theresa together and still win. That was the basic rule in this game, and according to this saving the Council was a save bet. Unrealistic in context with the real world, but working in context with the ME1 world. Based on the experience you make in the choices up to this point. In ME2 Bioware broke up with it. They made my hyper idealistic Shepard a 'doing everything to get results' guy. That's why he's working for Cerberus, that's why he is letting 300.000 Batarians die. Bioware reacted on fan-feedback and brushed the idealist off his socket. Maybe even because people complained about the ending of ME1. Everyone acts as if 'Save the Council at all costs' is the best option, but realistically it would be the most stupid. But realism isn't an important factor in the choices you make. And you know why? They want to make successful games, not good ones. And to make a successful game you don't need to make sense or be realistic. You just need to get alot of braindeads to buy and play your game. That's why this is a waste of time.

Ahh..there we go..

The "you are right, but this is a game so actually I am right " reply.

That's not a proper argument.
"It's just how Bioware does things" is not an argument for decision-making.
"In a Bioware universe, paragons always win" is not an argument for decision-making.

It doesn't work in the context of hte ME1 world because it's not an intrinsic part of the setting, neither is it rational or sensible.


But hey, by now you're so far gone I can't even see ayny point......

I don't see a point for a while now and don't even know why I keep going. This is a waste of time. I play the game, see what the best result is and make choices accordingly. The game doesn't care for your opinion. Or mine. Just like the ending with saving the Council. They treat you like you are an example for everyone, even if it was probably the most stupid choice you could make, so what? If in ME3 it turns out to be wrong to save the Council I just replay. It doesn't matter. Bioware doesn't make sense, why should I in my decisions? Good luck trying to change Bioware. They rather go bankrupt. As I said, as long as the game makes fun it is alright, if not I find better games. Or maybe no games anymore. Probably the best choice because games I like are getting more rare every year. And this year was especially bad. Despite 3 games I was looking forward to.

If you really want to argue for arguing sake I would suggest a topic that makes sense. Like politics, history, economics, whatever gets you going. But arguing about things that make sense or not in video games is useless. Because there are too many and 99% of people don't care.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 09:38 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
I don't see a point for a while now and don't even know why I keep going. This is a waste of time. I play the game, see what the best result is and make choices accordingly. The game doesn't care for your opinion. Or mine. Just like the ending with saving the Council. They treat you like you are an example for everyone, even if it was probably the most stupid choice you could make, so what? If in ME3 it turns out to be wrong to save the Council I just replay. It doesn't matter. Bioware doesn't make sense, why should I in my decisions?

At least you admit you're not trying to make any real sense and don't care about rationality and proper justification and validity of such decision.

In which case I have to ask  what your'e evne doing in a thread that pretty muhc focuses on in-universe reasoning, when you don't even care about it and dont' evne try to argoue about it but constantly reach outwards?