437 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

And I apologize. Now that you explained your reasoning, I can see that it's more than idiotic decision making.

Just as a forewarning, you might want to clarify this. The statement can be read as you either saying that his reasoning is not idiotic, or rather that it's more idiotic than you previously suspected. Might let us all avoid a potential flame war.

Damn.

Before, I saw it as blind idiotic decision making.

Now that it was explained, I see that it isn't blind, nor is it idiotic.

Thank you.  Not many people are mature enough to apologize on the internet.  

[Phazor58]

I just do whatever I think is best for the situation. Renegade is typically the better choice IMO. And of course, if there's a 50/50 split in what I feel would be the most effective, I go renegade. There's a few decisions in the game where I go paragon, especially if I'm talking to squadmates.  In ME2 I maxed out renegade and was about halfway up on paragon.

Modifié par Phazor58, 24 janvier 2012 - 02:14 .

[BlueMagitek]

AlexXIV wrote...
My Shep's an idealist obviously. That's all justification I need. I mean letting the Rachni Queen go is a bit reckless. Because you don't know how many people will pay the price. But out of principle I will not end an entire species. Even if it means that alot of people may die for it.

Your Shepard is ridiculously selfish. >_>

[AlexXIV]

jreezy wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
My Shep's an idealist obviously. That's all justification I need. I mean letting the Rachni Queen go is a bit reckless. Because you don't know how many people will pay the price. But out of principle I will not end an entire species. Even if it means that alot of people may die for it.

Your Shepard is ridiculously selfish. >_>

Indeed.

No, not really. If my Shep was selfish the Queen would die and everyone would be happy. If it was selfish then Shep would gain something from doing. Which is not the case. My Shep is playing god. Because he/she can.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 janvier 2012 - 03:36 .

[BlueMagitek]

AlexXIV wrote...

No, not really. If my Shep was selfish the Queen would die and everyone would be happy. If it was selfish then Shep would gain something from doing. Which is not the case. My Shep is playing god. Because he/she can.

No, your Shepard is selfish for putting his morals above the lives of others.  You basically boil down to "It doesn't matter if others died because of my decision; I upheld my values".

[PauseforEffect]

The moments I can gleefully pick renegade dialogue is when Shepard's insulting self-inflated villains who are hindering Shepard's mission. Same thing usually with renegade actions. Otherwise, acting on a hair-trigger temper with socially tone-deaf skills just makes Shepard seem too much like a tool. See what happened with "Lord Darius" when the Alliance sent Shepard there? Renegade tool.

[Ahglock]

The big problem with the paragon/renegade decisions is there is rarely a in between choice. Let her go with no over watch or kill her, give the base to Cerberus, destroy the base etc. The end of ME1 had a sort of in between choice but it was the same result as the renegade result. How focus on the reaper is the same as let them die i hate them anyways is beyond me, but oh well at least it verbalized a in between choice.

Seriously I can justify renegade over paragon in almost every case not because renegade is a good choice, just because the paragon choice is a bit worse. Kill the murderer or let him go, um why can't I like hold him prisoner and turn him over to the cops?

[LetMeW1n]

You aren't a real idealist if you did not trust the rachni queen despite letting her go. I actually believed her when she said the war was a result of reaper manipulation for whatever purposes we do not know yet.

Edit: I mean, paragon shepard did speculate reaper involvement, although the queen did not say so specifically

Modifié par LetMeW1n, 24 janvier 2012 - 05:08 .

[Phaedon]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
"Family" and "Community" came first.

No they did not. We are talking about species-level indoctrination. Semi-organised warfare between humans started way after we were divided into nomads. And it's still different to talk about species-level of indoctrination.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That wasn't "on sight". The hostilities started later, after we found they have GOLD!

And upon meeting these Indians, Columbus enslaved them and believing that they were savage forced them to convert to Christianity. These facts are not in dispute.  

Racism more often than not has nothing to do with resources, even if you can claim that Columbus tried to convert the indigenous people for resources.

The Aztecs were forcibly converted to a European lifestyle not because of resources, but because they were viewed as savages. Which is rather funny, because Tenochtitlan was once greater at Rome of the same period.

Most murderous racists do attack on sight, if they feel that their acti will be followed by impunity, you know. I am pretty sure that the KKK didn't really debate the philosophical aspects of lynching people before doing so.

that is not mind-control....

Ah, yes it is.


Mind control[/b] (also known as brainwashing[/b], coercive persuasion[/b], mind abuse[/b], thought control[/b], or thought reform[/b]) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul sustains that the "principal aims of these psychological methods is to destroy a man's habitual patterns, space, hours, milieu, and so on." 

"Here, buy this piece of paper, and you can secure eternal life. Also, if you don't agree with me, you'll BURN IN A BIG FIRE."

"These people have slightly different beliefs than us, KILL THEM ALL"

Again, I won't mention the specifics of the obvious brainwashing of the recent ultranationalist period of Europe, unless I have to.

Modifié par Phaedon, 24 janvier 2012 - 11:54 .

[incinerator950]

Its about expressing yourself. Either through malice, restraint, carelessness, or just plain killing everything.

I myself use Renegade to solve things peacefully for the good of people, even if it means being a little extreme. I prefer doing Renegon runs, pure runs don't feel natural, and I somehow ended up with more Paragon in my last playthrough on ME 1 and ME 2.

Also, we just love being ***-****es.

[Phaedon]

incinerator950 wrote...

Its about expressing yourself. Either through malice, restraint, carelessness, or just plain killing everything.

Does that really work?

I can't pick the renegade option when talking to squadmates without cutting immersion. Full renegade playthroughs are fun, sure, but not always very immersion friendly.

[incinerator950]

Never understood that far, not a psyche major. I just shoot things. Hence why I had to go back through ME 1 to do every single mission again.

To me, being an ass is secondary. I'm actually a nice guy, its a simulation, and we find it amusing. As a person, you can get respect for being good, or get it by being feared or being a strong individual. So in a sense, what you're doing can be a natural reaction, there is no real rivalry or unhappy thoughts, because your squad is automatically scripted to follow you unless you go through some unfortunate patterns.

Hence why I play Renegon, not pure Renegade or Paragon.