440 réponses à ce sujet

[Yakko77]

I saved it for most of my plays in ME1 with the thought in mind that it was going to be a trilogy and that that ship might come in handy in a later game.

That doing such also saved the Council was a .... side effect....

[DJBare]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I think Bioware has pretty much confirmed (inadvertently) that the Paragon choices will always win out over any of the alternative ones (if the alternative ones even make it into the 3rd game). Blue is essentially the 'win button' cheat sheet of the series, whether it's a sound choice or not... and regardless of the circumstances surrounding the choice.

I'm really hoping that does not hold true for my paragon, as Zaeed once said "You know that's gonna come back and bite you in the ****"

You have got to be kidding me with this censorship!, I cannot even use the other term for a donkey!?

Modifié par DJBare, 28 janvier 2012 - 08:09 .

[Icinix]

DJBare wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I think Bioware has pretty much confirmed (inadvertently) that the Paragon choices will always win out over any of the alternative ones (if the alternative ones even make it into the 3rd game). Blue is essentially the 'win button' cheat sheet of the series, whether it's a sound choice or not... and regardless of the circumstances surrounding the choice.

I'm really hoping that does not hold true for my paragon, as Zaeed once said "You know that's gonna come back and bite you in the ****"

I thought BioWare had confirmed they were not punishing players for any decisions they made? Just providing different outcomes that still gave you a win, just different states of win.

In fact, pretty sure no matter what you've done in ME1 and ME2 its all on the Winning path already anyway.

[G3rman]

It comes back to bite both sides and everywhere in between, some choices more than others. It wouldn't be fair for BioWare to make Paragons purposely lose at one point and effectively make their (admittedly) naive way of playing impossible to work with. That said, ME3 will show that not all the good choices have pretty endings, especially that of

SPOILER

The Rachni decision

[incinerator950]

Icinix wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I think Bioware has pretty much confirmed (inadvertently) that the Paragon choices will always win out over any of the alternative ones (if the alternative ones even make it into the 3rd game). Blue is essentially the 'win button' cheat sheet of the series, whether it's a sound choice or not... and regardless of the circumstances surrounding the choice.

I'm really hoping that does not hold true for my paragon, as Zaeed once said "You know that's gonna come back and bite you in the ****"

I thought BioWare had confirmed they were not punishing players for any decisions they made? Just providing different outcomes that still gave you a win, just different states of win.

In fact, pretty sure no matter what you've done in ME1 and ME2 its all on the Winning path already anyway.

It is probably, its just that you will always get a better reward, morally at least, for using Paragon.  There have been no reprocussions thus far in the series for either doing good things or bad things. 

Sad to see that Army of Two TFD did a better job at that then either ME, just saying.  I don't want to be rewarded for being good or an ***-****, I want bad things to happen because thats life.  Karma's a *****, whose to say a guy you let live won't come around for round two?  Outcome shouldn't be white or White with a red overtone.

G3rman wrote...

It comes back to bite both sides and
everywhere in between, some choices more than others. It wouldn't be
fair for BioWare to make Paragons purposely lose at one point and
effectively make their (admittedly) naive way of playing impossible to
work with. That said, ME3 will show that not all the good choices have
pretty endings, especially that of

SPOILER

The Rachni decision

Sorry, **** happens.  Doesn't matter if its fair, but so far I haven't read the scripts or Dev talks, I don't know what happens to the Rachni.  

Modifié par incinerator950, 28 janvier 2012 - 08:14 .

[DJBare]

incinerator950 wrote...
I want bad things to happen because thats life.  Karma's a *****, whose to say a guy you let live won't come around for round two?  Outcome shouldn't be white or White with a red overtone.

I could not agree more, it makes for a more interesting story when good intentions backfire.

[Icinix]

@incinerator950 - agreed. I would rather be punished for a game play decision, than have my choices made moot so everyone could be happy. But that said - I also play games to be a super wondrous hero that makes the universe a better place by winking evil into oblivion or swaying evil with a charming smile.

As for the leak - if the leak is accurate - and I hope it isn't, then it would appear a lot of decisions made from Me1 and Me2 have been balanced for everyone to the point of being redundant.

[G3rman]

I'm not saying bad things shouldn't happen to Paragons, I'm just saying they shouldn't be punished to the extent their playthroughs would be effectively failed.

[atheelogos]

G3rman wrote...

I'm not saying bad things shouldn't happen to Paragons, I'm just saying they shouldn't be punished to the extent their playthroughs would be effectively failed.

and we already know it won't go that far.... so yeah no worries 

[incinerator950]

G3rman wrote...

I'm not saying bad things shouldn't happen to Paragons, I'm just saying they shouldn't be punished to the extent their playthroughs would be effectively failed.

I do.  Not saying the game should screw Paragons over, but not everything should be roses and chocolates for them.  The world doesn't revolve around rewarding good people.  It's an even worse day when a woman tells a man that Gentlemen don't get anywhere in life.

Not saying Renegades should be the opposite, it should be that way for both.

[G3rman]

I think you are missing my point, I agree Paragons should have problems in their choices (which I have seen they do, especially in ME3) but not to the extent it makes Paragon just un-fun to play.

Regardless, ME3 will play the way it will and people will either enjoy it, hate it, or groan at it.

[incinerator950]

G3rman wrote...

I think you are missing my point, I agree Paragons should have problems in their choices (which I have seen they do, especially in ME3) but not to the extent it makes Paragon just un-fun to play.

Regardless, ME3 will play the way it will and people will either enjoy it, hate it, or groan at it.

Just like Fable 3 killing off the entire kingdom for trying to be good?  Had to work your ass off to save them.  

Ironically for being a Renegon, I somehow got a Paragon Flag for my Shepard, and somehow got all the Paragon major missions, despite all the people I killed.

[111987]

I think if people are going to view this from the perspective of Shepard, they have to keep in mind everything about the situation. Have you role-played your Shepard to be a racist, or a hard-line soldier? Then Shepard will let the DA die; the opposite is true if your Shepard was role-played differently.

Unlike us forumites, Shepard does not have an infinite time to make a choice (if we're looking at it from an in-game perspective). Shepard has just a few seconds to make a choice. That means the first conclusion he reaches will be the course of action he/she takes, which is why Shepard's personality is so important in regards to this decision. In the heat of the moment, either choice could be made for both the right reasons and the wrong reasons.

For the Shepard meant to represent what I would do if I were Shepard, I decided to focus on Sovereign, because stopping the Reapers at all cost was my immediate thought, so diverting resources to the DA seemed unnecessary. But if I had unlimited time to ponder the choice, the more variables are thought of and the choice becomes less clear than it was initially.

[G3rman]

incinerator950 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

I think you are missing my point, I agree Paragons should have problems in their choices (which I have seen they do, especially in ME3) but not to the extent it makes Paragon just un-fun to play.

Regardless, ME3 will play the way it will and people will either enjoy it, hate it, or groan at it.

Just like Fable 3 killing off the entire kingdom for trying to be good?  Had to work your ass off to save them.  

Fable III was so broken, I found that days didn't decrease in the final timer unless you completed all the missions.  So I just ran around and collected rent from every property in the game, the major 'jerk' choices you made could all be good and it didn't matter much.

Just a little bored walking around in your kingdom, killing the same stuff over again.  Still, it was cool being King.

[incinerator950]

G3rman wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

G3rman wrote...

I think you are missing my point, I agree Paragons should have problems in their choices (which I have seen they do, especially in ME3) but not to the extent it makes Paragon just un-fun to play.

Regardless, ME3 will play the way it will and people will either enjoy it, hate it, or groan at it.

Just like Fable 3 killing off the entire kingdom for trying to be good?  Had to work your ass off to save them.  

Fable III was so broken, I found that days didn't decrease in the final timer unless you completed all the missions.  So I just ran around and collected rent from every property in the game, the major 'jerk' choices you made could all be good and it didn't matter much.

Just a little bored walking around in your kingdom, killing the same stuff over again.  Still, it was cool being King.

Outside of metagaming, it was a good idea. 

[G3rman]

The first time was when I didn't metagame and lost everyone, it was quite lonely with everywhere being a ghost town and all. One of the few times being really good didn't feel quite so..satisfying.

[incinerator950]

G3rman wrote...

The first time was when I didn't metagame and lost everyone, it was quite lonely with everywhere being a ghost town and all. One of the few times being really good didn't feel quite so..satisfying.

It's not supposed to when the world screws you over.  My first playthrough I did my general neutral attitude.  I was short by little over one mill.  Saved a lot of people, meh.

[angry_peon]

OK here is a tactical question:
Did you honestly think that Sovereign would die so easily, to the first charge and frigate cannons of all things? I didn't. My Shepard didn't. Everything points at a Reaper being an incredibly tough nut to crack. I thought it would take time to crack that nut. What is "a moment" as given by Vigil, anyway? Could be 5 seconds, 5 minutes, half an hour...
So what my Shep thought was: Well, when we rush past the Geth fleet and attack Sovereign (again he assumed that would take some serious punishment), that Geth fleet (of that we don't know jack, neither how big it is, nor how fast they would finnish DA and the rest of the citadel fleet) would attack the Alliance from behind. Flanking maneuvers and rear attacks are mighty important, as Lotion stated several times now.
So the safe thing (to me at least) was clearing up the Geth first, so that the Citadel fleet (or a portion) could join in the attack on Sovi, our rears and flanks would be secured and we could concentrate all that firepower really on the Reaper (who again, I thought would take one hell of a beating before going down). So my gamble is the unspecific amount of time we had bought.
The other gamble is that a very brief ammount of time would be enough to kill the mighty Reaper, before the Geth would intervene.
Both are very high risk, if you ask me. And as it turns out, both work out.

[Berkilak]

I'm just disappointed that the "Concentrate on Sovereign!" option has no narrative effect come ME2. Yes, my Shepard was unwilling to sacrifice the ships to save the council. No, he didn't do it out of any pro-human or anti-alien leanings. It was simply the most logical course of action, given the situation. I wish those negative connotations were shed.

[incinerator950]

Berkilak wrote...

I'm just disappointed that the "Concentrate on Sovereign!" option has no narrative effect come ME2. Yes, my Shepard was unwilling to sacrifice the ships to save the council. No, he didn't do it out of any pro-human or anti-alien leanings. It was simply the most logical course of action, given the situation. I wish those negative connotations were shed.

What you say should have no impact.  What happened will, you let the Council die, now the alien races dislike you...well the Council ones.  Depending on your Renegade or Paragon score will determine the new council.

[jbadm04]

I'm just disappointed that the "Concentrate on Sovereign!" option has no narrative effect come ME2. Yes, my Shepard was unwilling to sacrifice the ships to save the council. No, he didn't do it out of any pro-human or anti-alien leanings. It was simply the most logical course of action, given the situation. I wish those negative connotations were shed.

I just hope people who think like this are no military leaders, because they would be the downfall of their subordinates.

[Yakko77]

Varhjhin wrote...

OK here is a tactical question:

So what my Shep thought was: Well, when we rush past the Geth fleet and attack Sovereign (again he assumed that would take some serious punishment), that Geth fleet (of that we don't know jack, neither how big it is, nor how fast they would finnish DA and the rest of the citadel fleet) would attack the Alliance from behind. Flanking maneuvers and rear attacks are mighty important, as Lotion stated several times now.
So the safe thing (to me at least) was clearing up the Geth first, so that the Citadel fleet (or a portion) could join in the attack on Sovi, our rears and flanks would be secured and we could concentrate all that firepower really on the Reaper (who again, I thought would take one hell of a beating before going down). So my gamble is the unspecific amount of time we had bought.
The other gamble is that a very brief ammount of time would be enough to kill the mighty Reaper, before the Geth would intervene.
Both are very high risk, if you ask me. And as it turns out, both work out.

Beat me to it.

Plus, given what we know about the DA, it's an exceptionally strong ship that simply got caught in a Taranto/Pearl Harbor moment.  Sovi punched through and the Geth closed to "knife range" before the DA could be effective.  It was my belief that the long term benefit of having the DA would offset the loss of Alliance cruisers.  I hope the game devs don't wipe out the DA  in some first strike on the Asari homeworld as if the choice had no meaning and that instead the DA has some significant contribution to a final battle even if it is ultimately lost in that effort but saves many by being there.

As I said before, saving the mostly useless Council was just a side effect of that action.  I couldn't care less about their fate, my choice in ME1 to save the DA was an effort to save a vital military asset.

[ParagonForLife]

Yakko77 wrote...

Varhjhin wrote...

OK here is a tactical question:

So what my Shep thought was: Well, when we rush past the Geth fleet and attack Sovereign (again he assumed that would take some serious punishment), that Geth fleet (of that we don't know jack, neither how big it is, nor how fast they would finnish DA and the rest of the citadel fleet) would attack the Alliance from behind. Flanking maneuvers and rear attacks are mighty important, as Lotion stated several times now.
So the safe thing (to me at least) was clearing up the Geth first, so that the Citadel fleet (or a portion) could join in the attack on Sovi, our rears and flanks would be secured and we could concentrate all that firepower really on the Reaper (who again, I thought would take one hell of a beating before going down). So my gamble is the unspecific amount of time we had bought.
The other gamble is that a very brief ammount of time would be enough to kill the mighty Reaper, before the Geth would intervene.
Both are very high risk, if you ask me. And as it turns out, both work out.

Beat me to it.

Plus, given what we know about the DA, it's an exceptionally strong ship that simply got caught in a Taranto/Pearl Harbor moment.  Sovi punched through and the Geth closed to "knife range" before the DA could be effective.  It was my belief that the long term benefit of having the DA would offset the loss of Alliance cruisers.  I hope the game devs don't wipe out the DA  in some first strike on the Asari homeworld as if the choice had no meaning and that instead the DA has some significant contribution to a final battle even if it is ultimately lost in that effort but saves many by being there.

As I said before, saving the mostly useless Council was just a side effect of that action.  I couldn't care less about their fate, my choice in ME1 to save the DA was an effort to save a vital military asset.

yea but you know the reapers are coming and in you save them in Mass Effect 2 Turians love you also the colonies that get attacked have aid sent to them by other races so gaining them as allies will probally be super easy in ME3 seeing as the council will support me as if they dont I can turn the entire galaxy agianst them 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The Geth were fighting all the way around Citadel space, not just where the Ascension was.  No one else said they couldn't save the Ascension... and battle was still going on outside (you could hear it).

Meanwhile... Sovereign is all by himself getting ready to summon his merry band of galaxy killers... and could do so at virtually any moment.

Not giving that understatedly massive threat top priority because of a few Geth ships is... inconsiderate of the galaxy's needs.  Surely some of your fleet can break away to engage any such pursuing Geth if that ever happened...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 29 janvier 2012 - 12:17 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Icinix wrote...
I thought BioWare had confirmed they were not punishing players for any decisions they made? Just providing different outcomes that still gave you a win, just different states of win.

In fact, pretty sure no matter what you've done in ME1 and ME2 its all on the Winning path already anyway.

That's what they said... but what actually happened is different.  Story-wise, non-Paragon choices get punished with less content, story continuity, praise, narrative perks etc.

I'm confident that they would not win in a debate proving that they didn't "punish" you for making major non-Paragon decisions.  Non-Paragon choices get a "'lesser' state of win."