529 réponses à ce sujet

[Yezdigerd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...
Does it really matter?

Yes.

Then please explain why. You seem to write about 20% of all text on this forum, and I can't ever recall you admitting to being wrong. We both know you will claim that those interpretation of the cutscenes were correct, no offence intended, but I don't care about how you do it, so why does it matter?

Not really, but it does require the ships to go around. While being fired upon. And the enemy fleet between them and their destination. And they having to expose the ENGINES to enemy fire to get there.

I haven't seen any figures about combat speed by I would expect those distances to be traversed in seconds, if not fraction of seconds.

Not under combat conditions. Changing direction is space take time. And agian - cutscene distances (which contradict fluff distances).

Is this simply your speculation or is there anything factual behind your claim?  If space combat take place over thousands of kilometers what would the average evasive manuever be? As far as I can tell 40 kilometers could be a tilt of the joystick.

The optimal fireing solution is always the bigegst cross-section.
But engiens are a big and juicy target.
And if the Geth are gonna pass by the Citadel fleet, then range won't be much of an issue.
Also, engines have a tendancy to point in the opposite direction of the main guns.

So the Geth would have the Citadel fleet hounding then and shooting their engines while they themselves can't return fire. The Suicide Mission has better odds of working.

If the side of the ship gives the enemy the best opportunity to hurt you, wouldn't it follow that that exposing the rear is preferable to exposing the side?

Well, the sides make it easier to hit you since the surface area is bigger.
But damage to engines means you won't be moving at all wich also make you far easier to hit (and prevents you from reaching your objective)
Also at bigger distances it's easier to hit a target moving away from you, since the movement deviation is smaller

Still doesn't make sense, either the side of the ship is the preferred target or it isn't, Maybe the lesser profile presented offset the potential greater damage a hit would cause in the tailpipe or maybe the chance to damage the engines is about as potent or more so by the broadside.  Whatever the reason, if the rear was the more vulnerable target it would be the one you tried to line up, the codex says it isn't.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:37 .

[Yezdigerd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

And kinetic barriers down 40% (whatever that means), main drive implies auxillary drives. Though what is the main drive anyway, the FTL drive core? for all I still know it's sublight speed is completely unaffected as well as weapons. It's not like Sovereign is far away, like 100 kilometers at best and I understand Dreadnoughts prefer some range.

[Eclipse_9990]

The end always justifies the means. Always. If it meant saving the Asari, Turians, Salarians, Volus, Hanar, Drell, human, and the other races. I would do anything, and not lose a lick of sleep over it.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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?

Does it make sense to oppose Saren? To try stop the Reapers? If you are judging the game on sense then judge the whole game and not just some situations. Most things don't make sense. Some of your pals even suggested Shepard gets there with pure luck. May be foolish to rely on luck, but, duh. It worked and will work in the future. Why? Because Bioware didn't bother to write a realistic story. They didn't even want to write a realistic story. They wrote a fricken heroic space opera/epic. What's is imporant is emotion, not reason. I make all my judgement emotional and impulsive and I am almost always right in the game. Guess why? Because Bioware wrote it so. As I said, you're wasting your time. Go on if you must but don't say nobody told you.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 11:50 .

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

That's why the Protheans didn't rely on their luck. That's why Shepard doesn't. You only say it is luck because you don't understand it.

No, YOU still don't understand it. Go read Dean's post once more. And if you still don't get it, read it again, until you finally understand. His post is on page 16.

I couldn't explain it any better than Dean. So if you still don't get it after reading Dean's post than I give up.

AlexXIV wrote...

Or do you even know what exactly happened at the Reaper attack on the Protheans? Or why they didn't find Ilos? No, you know nothing and that's why you say it was luck. You replace lack of knowledge with the term luck like religious people replace it with god.

Now you're just talking sh*t and you know it. Besides, Vigil himself said it was luck. So if you don't take my word on it, then at least take Vigil's word on it.

AlexXIV wrote...

I am agnostic if you know what that means. I don't believe in god and I said that many times over. That you fell for it just shows you are not good at spotting sarcasm, and you don't know a thing about me. You're just a kid trying to be cool on the internet. And you fail at it. But you know my opinon of people like you already. I told you after all.

Ohhhh, petty insults? Yeah, reaaaaaaaal mature... I have 3 words for you:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Go figure.

AlexXIV wrote...

Edit: You took me serious when I said that god is a human god and didn't mind the Reapers wiping the galaxy unless they wiped the humans? How can any half smart person take that serious? God is a human god lol. And who is the Alien god then? Come on. Man.

Frankly a lot of religious zealouts do think "god" is a "human god" and that we humans are created within his image. How was I supposed to know that you're not one of those religious zealouts? After all, you're the one who brought God up in the first place, in a desperate attempt to create an argument, since you don't have any real arguments to begin with.

Next time, don't bring God into the discussion, because it's even dumber than bringing Hitler into the discussion.

I'm done playing with you, sorry.

[ubermensch007]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote: So what do you think, do the ends justify the means? Would you be willing to do the unthinkable if the uoutcome was favorable and if so why?

Hmm... You know, a couple of months ago, I kind of got into some very robust debate and argument when I stated how I would have dealt with the Decepticons occupation of an American city in Transformers: Dark of the moon.

I was really offended by how little resistence Michael Bay and the writers had humanity put up against the Decepticons.My suspension of disbelief, was severly tested to its limits.

I said that this was bullsh!t. And I would have set off a low-yield tactical nuke in the atmosphere of the city.Because as nucelar physicist learned when they were testing the destructive powers of such weapons, from the 1940's - 60's. (Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie) Low yield atmospheric nucelar detonations were
surprisingly much more destructive than high-yield similar test.A tactical nuke of this variety could have ended the Decepticons occupation and attempt to merge Earth and their homeworld.Before it even got that far.

But no.The movie has to make the humans be 'stuck on stupid' and only the Autobots could "save us". My mother was sort of horrified at my suggested course of action, and a forumite thought that I didn't know anything about nucelar physics.To my mother I tried to help her see my point of veiw.And that I was looking at the situation, like a doctor who must amputate a part of a persons body in order to save them.

Now I'm not saying that the ends always justify the means.For me the battle with the Decepticons came down to the fact that they sought to enslave us and forever alter the geography of the planet Earth, regardless of how it would affect indigenous life forms.Kicking their ass and showing them who they are f*cking with.Is paramount in my eyes.The human race has dominion over this planet, and we will make them fight for every inch that they try to take from us!

My mother - thought me a monster for be willing to see the humans i that city as unfortunate, collateral damage; but I explained to her the way that I workout value assestments on this
scale:

I'm not a "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Type of person, persay. I view things more in an 'assest vs. liabilty' way.Strategic value zones, having the psycholgical edge in a fight, waying the pros and cons is what I'm about.I would not be so quick to give my life for another person.But sacrificing my life for victory.Is not something that I would be all that reluctant to do.I told my mother, that if I had to, I would have set off the nuke in the city myself.Bruce Willis style, like in Armageddon.

It comes down to this.As regrettable as it is that many human lives would have been lost in the city occupied by the Decepticons.To be at peace with this decision, I only need to ask myself:

1. What's worse - the destruction of a city or a state?

2. What's worse - the downfall of a state or entire nation?

3. What's more unacceptable - The annhilation of a nation or garden world?!

In all these instances I find the latter to be far more unacceptable than the former.There's no way that a city matters more than the state that it is in.A state does not eclipse the nation of its birth.A mere nation does not merit more concern than the planet.

I'm not a doctor.But like doctors, I understand their frame of mind; which is 'Assest Vs. Liabilty' If a part of a patients body becomes a liability.It must be removed.If the patient is to survive.(Amputation) This philospohy can also be applied to various aspects of the human condition.As I have shown here.Not everthing is about what's moral and ethical.There is no malice aforethought when a surgeon has to use their tools and skill, to save a life.Neither am I heartless for be willing to sacrfice a city to save a planet.Trying to view all things
through such a lense, can make one a fanatic.

[ubermensch007]

SykoWolf wrote: There is always another way, always.

@SykoWolf: No offense meant but - That's bullsh!t. A "there's always another way" attiude: comes straight out of a comic book.(As Jim Kelly would say). Its bs.The notion that time is on your side, and if you think good thoughts.A better course of action will reveal itself.Is dangerous...

Sometimes, you might find yourself in a situation not all that different from those who are coerced into playing Jiggsaw's life or death game in the Saw Survivor/Horror Films.  

And as for Commander Shepard.There was no time to mobilize the Systems Alliance or Citadel Council, to mount a couner-offensive to the imminent Reaper Invasion by way of the Alpha Relay. Shepard had little
over 90 minutes to decide whether to destroy the Alpha Relay, or not.

[nitefyre410]

ubermensch007 wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote: So what do you think, do the ends justify the means? Would you be willing to do the unthinkable if the uoutcome was favorable and if so why?

Hmm... You know, a couple of months ago, I kind of got into some very robust debate and argument when I stated how I would have dealt with the Decepticons occupation of an American city in Transformers: Dark of the moon.

I was really offended by how little resistence Michael Bay and the writers had humanity put up against the Decepticons.My suspension of disbelief, was severly tested to its limits.

I said that this was bullsh!t. And I would have set off a low-yield tactical nuke in the atmosphere of the city.Because as nucelar physicist learned when they were testing the destructive powers of such weapons, from the 1940's - 60's. (Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie) Low yield atmospheric nucelar detonations were
surprisingly much more destructive than high-yield similar test.A tactical nuke of this variety could have ended the Decepticons occupation and attempt to merge Earth and their homeworld.Before it even got that far.

But no.The movie has to make the humans be 'stuck on stupid' and only the Autobots could "save us". My mother was sort of horrified at my suggested course of action, and a forumite thought that I didn't know anything about nucelar physics.To my mother I tried to help her see my point of veiw.And that I was looking at the situation, like a doctor who must amputate a part of a persons body in order to save them.

Now I'm not saying that the ends always justify the means.For me the battle with the Decepticons came down to the fact that they sought to enslave us and forever alter the geography of the planet Earth, regardless of how it would affect indigenous life forms.Kicking their ass and showing them who they are f*cking with.Is paramount in my eyes.The human race has dominion over this planet, and we will make them fight for every inch that they try to take from us!

My mother - thought me a monster for be willing to see the humans i that city as unfortunate, collateral damage; but I explained to her the way that I workout value assestments on this
scale:

I'm not a "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Type of person, persay. I view things more in an 'assest vs. liabilty' way.Strategic value zones, having the psycholgical edge in a fight, waying the pros and cons is what I'm about.I would not be so quick to give my life for another person.But sacrificing my life for victory.Is not something that I would be all that reluctant to do.I told my mother, that if I had to, I would have set off the nuke in the city myself.Bruce Willis style, like in Armageddon.

It comes down to this.As regrettable as it is that many human lives would have been lost in the city occupied by the Decepticons.To be at peace with this decision, I only need to ask myself:

1. What's worse - the destruction of a city or a state?

2. What's worse - the downfall of a state or entire nation?

3. What's more unacceptable - The annhilation of a nation or garden world?!

In all these instances I find the latter to be far more unacceptable than the former.There's no way that a city matters more than the state that it is in.A state does not eclipse the nation of its birth.A mere nation does not merit more concern than the planet.

I'm not a doctor.But like doctors, I understand their frame of mind; which is 'Assest Vs. Liabilty' If a part of a patients body becomes a liability.It must be removed.If the patient is to survive.(Amputation) This philospohy can also be applied to various aspects of the human condition.As I have shown here.Not everthing is about what's moral and ethical.There is no malice aforethought when a surgeon has to use their tools and skill, to save a life.Neither am I heartless for be willing to sacrfice a city to save a planet.Trying to view all things
through such a lense, can make one a fanatic.

 


This I can't not argue  the logic is sound and it is a viable plan  - would have to plan for possible fallout over  the  American heart land and bread basket.   I would use it as a last ditch  Hail Mary  senerico... through that was not what pissed me offed what pissed was  US constantly throwing the best  assest against the Con out the damn window... NEST and the BOTs.  Like REALLY after everything some higher ups did not say... lets not  get rid of these guys... Thank goodness Prime in in his brillance always has a back up plan ... cause if not... FUBAR .

[ubermensch007]

armass wrote: I do however support "the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few" idea.

@armass: It would appear that Mother Nature agrees with you.What with how most predators hunt in a pack.Take down one herbervoire and this one animal death, sustains many other animals life.

armass wrote: If 10 people must die for 1000 to live, they would die if the choice was mine.

@armass: But is that the right choice? Allow me to play the part of 'Devil's Adovacte' for a moment - Humanity is overpopulating this planet.Many species have gone extinct or are on the threshold of it, because of us encroaching on their natural habitats.

I have sometimes thought, when I'm watching anti-terrorism Films or Tv Series like 24 or The Peacemaker, or Disaster Movies, or if I were as powerful as Superman.Would I be as quick to intervene in saving large amounts of human lives as he is.Not on account of apathy or misanthropy or anything like that.It has more to do with recognizing how America alone, is a nation which houses somewhere around 5% of the entire human population, but consumes a titanic amount of the planets resources! If merely 5% of us can do this. How would this planet and all life that calls this world home fair.With more America like nations?

It could be said that the world has changed. Now, 'the many do far more harm to the planet, (create a much greater carbon footprint and etc) than the few.So who should be sacrificed for whom? Why should a
thousand people's lives be saved at the expense of ten people's lives? When the 1000 are (potentionally) a much more destructive force than the 10 will ever be?

[Bleachrude]

No, the only thing opponents have shown is a willfull disregard of actual facts.

We have posted video and pictures from the actual cutscene showing that the geth are coming straight at the citadel and the DA.

The only response is that "the geth are fighting somewhere else with the citadel in the nebulae?"

When we point out "Why would the citadel fleet and the geth be even fighting in the nebulae given that the only way to the citadel is through the relay..."

We get "oh, that's just the cutscene being wrong"

When we point out that it makes no sense for either the geth or citadel fleet to leave their DN vulnerable (that's the whole point of having frigates and crusiers screening DN)

The response is "oh, they are doing high speed manoeuvering all around us"

We point out from the codex WHY you don't want to be doing high speed manoeuvering and again it gets ignored.

We point out from their own website WHY being able to just use thrusters you can orient your weapons, this gets ignored.

So really, what's the point of the discussion?

Both sides have no intention of changing their viewpoint so the discussion is at a cross-road..

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Does it make sense to oppose Saren? To try stop the Reapers? If you are judging the game on sense then judge the whole game and not just some situations. Most things don't make sense. Some of your pals even suggested Shepard gets there with pure luck. May be foolish to rely on luck, but, duh. It worked and will work in the future. Why? Because Bioware didn't bother to write a realistic story. They didn't even want to write a realistic story. They wrote a fricken heroic space opera/epic. What's is imporant is emotion, not reason. I make all my judgement emotional and impulsive and I am almost always right in the game. Guess why? Because Bioware wrote it so. As I said, you're wasting your time. Go on if you must but don't say nobody told you.

FINALLY! You finally admit that your choices and arguments aren't logical. At least you admit that you don't follow actual logic, but simply your emotions.

That's all I wanted to hear. I'm glad you finally admit that your choices (saving the council, destroying the base etc. etc.) aren't the logical choices, but the emotional choices. Thank god for finally admitting that!

Oh I never said anything else. I was argueing that there are good reasons to pick paragon choices, which is quite true. I never said that I am getting my brain twisted to find them though before I make choices. It is simple really. Trial and error. You start with a hypothesis, then you test it. Theory in this case is paragon playthough. As in, trying to get through the game by being the nice guy. Does it work, yes/ no? To find out, you try. It worked so conclusion is the hypothesis is true. The hypocracy around here isn't that I argue that I think every decision through before I made it. I never said that. It's that you people say you. Just sayin'. So keep fighting this strawman or whatever.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...
Does it really matter?

Yes.

Then please explain why. You seem to write about 20% of all text on this forum, and I can't ever recall you admitting to being wrong. We both know you will claim that those interpretation of the cutscenes were correct, no offence intended, but I don't care about how you do it, so why does it matter?

Becasue context and knowledge always matter. Knowing how things are done and why always matters.

A simple example - sound in space. There's none. ME condex acknowledges this. Yet in cutscenes there is sound. It's there for dramatic effect. It's there to create atmoshpere and paint the happening with sound as well visuals, and to give the viewer a refference point (sicne we know guns make souns in atmosphere)

Would you argue that the codex is wrong? That there is sound in space in ME? No?

Same thing here. Cinematics have their own "thing" and things are down is specfiic ways too present things to the audiance and create tension and awe. The Codex explain space combat - the ranges, speeds and distances involved. The cinematic is in conflict with this.

Fluff/Codex >>> Cinematic.

One is there to give rules and describe the working of the universe. The other is there for the wow effect and is known to take liberties to achieve it.

Comprende?

Not under combat conditions. Changing direction is space take time. And agian - cutscene distances (which contradict fluff distances).

Is this simply your speculation or is there anything factual behind your claim?  If space combat take place over thousands of kilometers what would the average evasive manuever be? As far as I can tell 40 kilometers could be a tilt of the joystick.

Delta-V. Read up on movement in space. ME follows Newtnian movement.

If the side of the ship gives the enemy the best opportunity to hurt you, wouldn't it follow that that exposing the rear is preferable to exposing the side?

Well, the sides make it easier to hit you since the surface area is bigger.
But damage to engines means you won't be moving at all wich also make you far easier to hit (and prevents you from reaching your objective)
Also at bigger distances it's easier to hit a target moving away from you, since the movement deviation is smaller

Still doesn't make sense, either the side of the ship is the preferred target or it isn't, Maybe the lesser profile presented offset the potential greater damage a hit would cause in the tailpipe or maybe the chance to damage the engines is about as potent or more so by the broadside.  Whatever the reason, if the rear was the more vulnerable target it would be the one you tried to line up, the codex says it isn't.

Both are preffered target, since both raise chances of hiting and damaging ships. If ME ships had turreted guns, then the side of the ship wouldn't be optimal.

Since space battels are USUALLY contucted at long-range, and the enmy practicly never turns it's back on you, then lining up sideways is preferable.
But in the scenario you described, range is not a problem, and enemy turning your back to you is not a problem.
And I kinda think a direct hit to the engine is worse than a side-armor hit. The engine is by necessity fully exposed from the rear, while it does have some armoring from the side.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

And kinetic barriers down 40% (whatever that means), main drive implies auxillary drives. Though what is the main drive anyway, the FTL drive core? for all I still know it's sublight speed is completely unaffected as well as weapons. It's not like Sovereign is far away, like 100 kilometers at best and I understand Dreadnoughts prefer some range.

Secondareis by definitons are onyl a fraction of the power of the main engines. And usually used just for basic manouvering. That means the DA, even if it can move, will be SLOW.

Secondly, is it's main gun operation? We don't know.
Will it join the fight? We don't know - but sice it was evacuating the council, is damaged and it's barriers are depleted - probably not.
And again, could it even get a shot from there? If it has to re-position itself then it means it's takign time.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bleachrude wrote...

No, the only thing opponents have shown is a willfull disregard of actual facts.

We have posted video and pictures from the actual cutscene showing that the geth are coming straight at the citadel and the DA.

The only response is that "the geth are fighting somewhere else with the citadel in the nebulae?"

When we point out "Why would the citadel fleet and the geth be even fighting in the nebulae given that the only way to the citadel is through the relay..."

We get "oh, that's just the cutscene being wrong"

When we point out that it makes no sense for either the geth or citadel fleet to leave their DN vulnerable (that's the whole point of having frigates and crusiers screening DN)

The response is "oh, they are doing high speed manoeuvering all around us"

We point out from the codex WHY you don't want to be doing high speed manoeuvering and again it gets ignored.

We point out from their own website WHY being able to just use thrusters you can orient your weapons, this gets ignored.

So really, what's the point of the discussion?

Both sides have no intention of changing their viewpoint so the discussion is at a cross-road..

Alas, all of your complaints have been adressed.

Since you do not understand newtonian movement, then you mining for a quote you THINK supports your position is not the argument you hoped for.

High-speed manouvering is preferable in combat, neither the codex, nor common sense supports your notion of ships not evading or moving slow as snails.
Using thrusters to orient weapons does nothing to counter the raised problem of moving in space and lack of friction. DElta-V is the law of space movement, a law which the ME universe acknowledges. Read up on it and then come back.

If you want me to change my oppinion, you're going to have to come up with better arguments than that.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

And kinetic barriers down 40% (whatever that means), main drive implies auxillary drives. Though what is the main drive anyway, the FTL drive core? for all I still know it's sublight speed is completely unaffected as well as weapons. It's not like Sovereign is far away, like 100 kilometers at best and I understand Dreadnoughts prefer some range.

Secondareis by definitons are onyl a fraction of the power of the main engines. And usually used just for basic manouvering. That means the DA, even if it can move, will be SLOW.

Secondly, is it's main gun operation? We don't know.
Will it join the fight? We don't know - but sice it was evacuating the council, is damaged and it's barriers are depleted - probably not.
And again, could it even get a shot from there? If it has to re-position itself then it means it's takign time.

And to be honest, to be on Lotion's side for once, if the DA would have jumped back to action we would have seen it in a cutscene because it is a somewhat imporant event. As we can see how we discuss it. But we only see (or hear) Hackett ordering the Alliance to attack and we only see Alliance ships attacking in the cutscene. Although should probably still be noted that Sovereign was going down already after the fight with Shepard so ... we don't even know if they just blew up an already inactive/derelict Reaper at this point. Could of course just be 'knocked out' for the moment.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 décembre 2011 - 11:38 .

[nitefyre410]

Luc0s wrote...



Sometimes, the Paragon decision is not the most rational/logical decision. That's all I ever defended and it's all I ever argued. Now, do you agree with this or not?

 


I see  no problem with it... played full paragon and did not save the DA.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Oh I never said anything else. I was argueing that there are good reasons to pick paragon choices, which is quite true. I never said that I am getting my brain twisted to find them though before I make choices. It is simple really. Trial and error. You start with a hypothesis, then you test it. Theory in this case is paragon playthough. As in, trying to get through the game by being the nice guy. Does it work, yes/ no? To find out, you try. It worked so conclusion is the hypothesis is true. The hypocracy around here isn't that I argue that I think every decision through before I made it. I never said that. It's that you people say you. Just sayin'. So keep fighting this strawman or whatever.

Rightttttttt..... Well it's good to know that you don't only make choices based on emotions instead of logic, but you also make choices based on meta-gaming instead of in-game logic.

You decided, as the player, that you want to go Paragon all the way, to see if it works. That's perfectly fine, but then I have to wonder, why in the world did you ever try to defend these Paragon choices against Lotion and me?

Lotion and me are attacking the Paragon choices for being illogical, or maybe not illogical, but irrational. We argue that some Paragon choices are simply not rational. You attacked our arguments and defended the Paragon choices to great lengths. And only NOW you tell us that you never actually believed that the Paragon choices are the (more) rational/logical choices? Only NOW you tell us that you based your Paragon decisions on mere emotions and meta-gaming, instead of logic and rationale?

Why the f*ck didn't you tell us before and why the f*ck did you ever start an argument with Lotion and me, who are merely saying that the Paragon choices are NOT the most logical choices?


Sometimes, the Paragon decision is not the most rational/logical decision. That's all I ever defended and it's all I ever argued. Now, do you agree with this or not?

If I told you before how could I argue with you?

I am just trying to prove you wrong when you say renegade choices are always rational. Or those who use renegade choices are more rational. Actually posts have gone as far as calling Paragons selfish and sacrificing the galaxy for their ego. Look, I should be more mature in alot of my posts. But basically as people act towards me, so I act on them. Even though I actually discredit such behavior. It's your choice how we discuss. Want to insult me, then make sure you wear fireproof underwear. Because it's comming back to you. Want to chat friendly, we can do that. Want to just argue and discuss facts, also an option. It's your choice how we converse. But I am not being all friendly if I am constantly being insulted. I wish I was but I am too impulsive and emotional, not only in the game, also in real life. That's why I am not apologizing for anything. I am usually not offending people unless they do it first. If any of you think I treat you unfairly or too rude you can pm me and we can talk about it.

I think paragons have good points. I usually argue against giving the cb to cerberus for example. I have not argued or thought about the Council decision much because, frankly, I can save the council and destroy Sovereing with no repercussions so I am going to do that. I am not roleplaying as much as others in single player games as it seems. I am an active roleplayer in MMOs though. Or was anyway. I can understand why in MMOs (so with other people) staying in character and not metagaming is imporant. Because you'd ruin other people's RP. But in a single player game? It's just you and some program. If it is ok for you to metagame then it is ok for the program too, it won't protest. So I don't get the whole metagaming in singleplayer games issue. That's probably too high for me.

As I said before the whole game is illogical. I wouldn't even know where to start when I wanted to point out everything that makes no sense in the game. It's your right to be frustrated, I am only saying that you are maybe expecting to much from a game or from Bioware. And why do you people get upset all the time if someone has a different opinion or argues a different point of view? There is nothing to be upset about. You are here to discuss, be happy people are discussing with you. Or would you prefer that everyone agrees and we have nothing to talk about?

What really bothers me is the rude attitude in general. I added my part to it I admit. But it is not just me. And sometimes I am just wondering what is behind this, why do people talk themselves in rage when we are all talking about a game we all enjoy. In one way or the other. I realize there can be different motivations and ways to play the game.

I am not really metagaming either when I go paragon all the way. It's the way I am in real life too. I try to see the positive, help if I can, and in general I am a friendly guy. Even if some posts in teh BSN maybe suggest otherwise. But I blame the BSN for that. Anyway I even have trouble making renegade choices because they don't feel right. Letting people die or killing them even though I have other choices is not my thing. It is different if I have no choice. That's why I am 'paragon' in every game. And in hardly any RPG I ever played in my video games career I have explored the 'dark side', not even for the lulz. I just don't find knee-jerk reactions that funny. Not my kind of humor.

To be honest I wasn't really sure of my opinion until yesterday. Then I started ME1 and played the last sequence from Ilos after Vigil again. So basically from the point Shepard jumps through the Conduit. And I studied it on my terms and realized, probably for the first time, how bad the paragon choice really is. Not the result, the result is the best. But Shepard saying 'Save the Council at any costs' while Sovereign is already logged to the Citadel and could, as far as Shepard knows, open the relay for the Reaper invasion at any time is really cheesy and stupid. Not sure what Bioware was thinking. I even expect they originally wanted to make the neutral option the perfect ending and then changed it. Because it makes no sense. As much as I like the council and even though I am going to save it everytime ... because I can ... I think the decision to ignore Sovereing and save the Council first is what I would call 'ruthless idealistic'. As in idealistic to a point to sacrifice everyone and everything for your ideals.
 
I wish it wouldn't play out so well. Aka that there would be three options, renegade, neutral, paragon. And I wish the neutral would be the best. As we have it we have one wrong choice, which is paragon, and two right choices, which is neutral and renegade. Even though renegade is jerkish it is in effect the same as the neutral, to attack Sovereign directly. Though the 'right' choices lead to the worse result. Aka Council dies, weakening the political structure of the galaxy. And the 'wrong' choice leads to the better result. Council lives, humanity (and Shepard) gain influence and respect of all species. And Sovereign goes down no matter what you choose. It's a case of writing fail imo.

Edit: And yes I agree that Paragon is not always more rational. It doesn't even have the claim to. Paragon does not mean being rational, it means being an example in virtue and morale. You can't be rational and the most virtuous person around.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 décembre 2011 - 04:10 .

[nitefyre410]

Luc0s wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...



Sometimes, the Paragon decision is not the most rational/logical decision. That's all I ever defended and it's all I ever argued. Now, do you agree with this or not?

 


I see  no problem with it... played full paragon and did not save the DA.

Same here. I'm also Paragon, but:

I sacrificed the Council,
killed Balak, and
kept the Collector base.

So, all my major decisions are Paragon, except for those 3 I listed above.

The Council was easy. for me... the  Galaxy can pic a new council and keep on ticking... the Council can't pick a new galaxy.


The Collector base I have always been of too minds on... there is most likely some damn usefully tech in there but the my paranoia of being a trojan horse just got the best of me.

So I blew it  up...

can't say it was wrong keeping it though.

[AlexXIV]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...



Sometimes, the Paragon decision is not the most rational/logical decision. That's all I ever defended and it's all I ever argued. Now, do you agree with this or not?

 


I see  no problem with it... played full paragon and did not save the DA.

Same here. I'm also Paragon, but:

I sacrificed the Council,
killed Balak, and
kept the Collector base.

So, all my major decisions are Paragon, except for those 3 I listed above.

The Council was easy. for me... the  Galaxy can pic a new council and keep on ticking... the Council can't pick a new galaxy.


The Collector base I have always been of too minds on... there is most likely some damn usefully tech in there but the my paranoia of being a trojan horse just got the best of me.

So I blew it  up...

can't say it was wrong keeping it though.

It is not even about the trojan horse (I suppose you are talking about indoctrination). You have to trust Cerberus. And you really only have the base for three months. There is probably not much to get that you don't have already. We already have new weapons based on Reaper tech. I would guess the Thannix cannon for example is powerful enough to be a threat to reapers. And if you are realistc, even upgrading every ship in the fleet with Thannix cannon will be impossible because it is too expensive and takes too long. And then putting effort in research that will probably not yield viable tech in time before the Reapers attack? If you asked me there are still too many things speaking against it. It is a far better choice than the Council one though. Still I would blow it up.