Hunter of Legends wrote...
You still shouldn't kill Fist in cold blood.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You provide just enough reason for as many species as posisble to side with you. The Krogan's desire for a cure will outweigh their anger at Shepard saving the Rachni Queen. I don't care if the Krogan like me for it, I'm just trying to get as much help as possible.Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The Krogan could be angered by you saving the Rachni, but you've also kept their cure.
The Council may be angered by you curing the Krogan, but you saved them too and so they owe you.
So at best you are keeping everybody neutral to you, but not really gaining anything.There aren't really any renegade decisions geared towards building bridges though - they're more geared towards eliminating threats. If we imagine it as, say, snakes and ladders - paragon decisions are generally abot creating ladders whereas renegade decisions are about eliminating snakes. Not a great analogy, but it sort of explains how I see it.
My original point was that a full paragon playthrough, while naive, gives you potential batering chips with near enough every species, while a pure renegade playthrough is more of a placing all your eggs in one basket kind of thing with the focus on helping humanity and Cerberus.
You've also taken a lot of risks, but that's just how Mass Effect works. When a Paragon wants to build a bridge the birdge works. When a Renegade wants to build one the bridge catches on fire.
There's no depth or intelligence or logic to any of it. It is all contrived and arbitrary.
BlueMagitek wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
You still shouldn't kill Fist in cold blood.
It isn't cold blood if it's right after a fire fight (where he had everyone under his employ try to kill you). You didn't just painstakingly plan his death ahead of time. To kill in cold blood is to kill without being emotionally involved. After a fire fight, you certainly aren't in a state of "cold blooded".
Saphra Deden wrote...
Thank you for this witty and constructive post.
incinerator950 wrote...
You starting to see why I'm getting angry about the Bioware agenda?
Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Thank you for this witty and constructive post.
Why must I always be witty and constructive, can't we just all laugh at each other equally?
incinerator950 wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Paragon choices tend to forge alliances and friendships with other species,
No, not really. For every species you befriend you also alienate another.
Curing the krogan is not what the Council wants.
Restoring the rachni is not what the krogan want.
Empowering the geth is not what the quarians want.
Destroying the base is not what Cerberus wants.
Choices exist in a vaccuum though so nobody ever notices how shiftless and underhanded Paragon Shepard is.
It's called Diplomacy and compromise.
Something people on here seem to forget...
No, diplomacy means negotiating a solution. Nobody was there to negotiate when you freed the rachni queen. Nobody was there to negotiate when you rewrote the geth. Nobody was there to negotiate when you took the genophage cure data. Nobody was there to negotiate when you blew up that Collector base.
Paragon Shepard just does whatever the hell he wants. He does whatever he needs to do to feel good about himself. He never thinks twice about the possible consequences of his actions. And why should he? This is a BioWare game after all. BioWare wouldn't dare to punish the pure-Paragon Shepard for his completely irresponsible actions.
Nobody was there to even explain to EITHER side wether the krogan should be spared.
Or that the Geth weren't all mindless reaper followers.
Or that the Rachni weren't monsters.
You see paragon shepard's actions but do you see the rest of the galaxies, and by extention other peoples actions? I don't disagree that paragon players should be punished (and we will be...sadly not enough) but some of this is just heavy handed emotion driven response.
The collocter base was made by the reapers and would surely "take humanities soul/aka indoctrinate", therefor destroying it was as viable as keeping it.
The geth rewritting I'll give you but you could ask Legion his view on it; it was a hard moral choice to make but again killing vs saving.
The Rachni had been wiped out by the krogan needlessly. The Council never asked them to do so but the Krogan continued to wipe them out. Who was there to defend them?
I don't disagree that paragon shepard does whatever the hell he wants but so does Rengade shepard...that's the whole point of the game.
Paragon Shepard doesn't see what the rest of the Galaxy thinks. Shepard sees what Shepard thinks is right or wrong for the Galaxy. Moral dilemas are people's own thoughts, not the 100% fact correct answer.
incinerator950 wrote...
Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Thank you for this witty and constructive post.
Why must I always be witty and constructive, can't we just all laugh at each other equally?
No, we must complain about everything and then talk about how previous titles by completely different teams should make up what Companies like Black Isles or Bioware be.
We should also yell at each other, and then cry in a corner.
Hunter of Legends wrote...
BlueMagitek wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
You still shouldn't kill Fist in cold blood.
It isn't cold blood if it's right after a fire fight (where he had everyone under his employ try to kill you). You didn't just painstakingly plan his death ahead of time. To kill in cold blood is to kill without being emotionally involved. After a fire fight, you certainly aren't in a state of "cold blooded".
But you've calmed down and he surrendered to you.
Killing him like that is cold blooded.
Hunter of Legends wrote...
incinerator950 wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Paragon choices tend to forge alliances and friendships with other species,
No, not really. For every species you befriend you also alienate another.
Curing the krogan is not what the Council wants.
Restoring the rachni is not what the krogan want.
Empowering the geth is not what the quarians want.
Destroying the base is not what Cerberus wants.
Choices exist in a vaccuum though so nobody ever notices how shiftless and underhanded Paragon Shepard is.
It's called Diplomacy and compromise.
Something people on here seem to forget...
No, diplomacy means negotiating a solution. Nobody was there to negotiate when you freed the rachni queen. Nobody was there to negotiate when you rewrote the geth. Nobody was there to negotiate when you took the genophage cure data. Nobody was there to negotiate when you blew up that Collector base.
Paragon Shepard just does whatever the hell he wants. He does whatever he needs to do to feel good about himself. He never thinks twice about the possible consequences of his actions. And why should he? This is a BioWare game after all. BioWare wouldn't dare to punish the pure-Paragon Shepard for his completely irresponsible actions.
Nobody was there to even explain to EITHER side wether the krogan should be spared.
Or that the Geth weren't all mindless reaper followers.
Or that the Rachni weren't monsters.
You see paragon shepard's actions but do you see the rest of the galaxies, and by extention other peoples actions? I don't disagree that paragon players should be punished (and we will be...sadly not enough) but some of this is just heavy handed emotion driven response.
The collocter base was made by the reapers and would surely "take humanities soul/aka indoctrinate", therefor destroying it was as viable as keeping it.
The geth rewritting I'll give you but you could ask Legion his view on it; it was a hard moral choice to make but again killing vs saving.
The Rachni had been wiped out by the krogan needlessly. The Council never asked them to do so but the Krogan continued to wipe them out. Who was there to defend them?
I don't disagree that paragon shepard does whatever the hell he wants but so does Rengade shepard...that's the whole point of the game.
Paragon Shepard doesn't see what the rest of the Galaxy thinks. Shepard sees what Shepard thinks is right or wrong for the Galaxy. Moral dilemas are people's own thoughts, not the 100% fact correct answer.
But he is doing what he thinks would best help other people...and that's all anyone can do really.
We(in terms of shepard) can read trillions of minds and see every plot thread at once (no, not the player you silly people). I won't disagree that Paragon shep does what HE wants but he does what he THINKS will help everyone.
Hunter of Legends wrote...
But you've calmed down and he surrendered to you.
Killing him like that is cold blooded.
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Thank you for this witty and constructive post.
Why must I always be witty and constructive, can't we just all laugh at each other equally?
King Minos wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
BlueMagitek wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
You still shouldn't kill Fist in cold blood.
It isn't cold blood if it's right after a fire fight (where he had everyone under his employ try to kill you). You didn't just painstakingly plan his death ahead of time. To kill in cold blood is to kill without being emotionally involved. After a fire fight, you certainly aren't in a state of "cold blooded".
But you've calmed down and he surrendered to you.
Killing him like that is cold blooded.
And why should he get mercy? He sent Tali to die.
We don't know the full extent of his crimes but sending someone into a trap to be killed off so you can loot their corpse for information to save money, why should a man like him live?
Removing snakes does have the rather large benefit of removing risks. If you wanted to form alliances, then surely a mix of paragon and renegade is best. You want Krogan support? Kill the Rachni but save the Genophage cure. You must've realised that going full renegade was never going to win you any favours with anyone.incinerator950 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You provide just enough reason for as many species as posisble to side with you. The Krogan's desire for a cure will outweigh their anger at Shepard saving the Rachni Queen. I don't care if the Krogan like me for it, I'm just trying to get as much help as possible.Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The Krogan could be angered by you saving the Rachni, but you've also kept their cure.
The Council may be angered by you curing the Krogan, but you saved them too and so they owe you.
So at best you are keeping everybody neutral to you, but not really gaining anything.There aren't really any renegade decisions geared towards building bridges though - they're more geared towards eliminating threats. If we imagine it as, say, snakes and ladders - paragon decisions are generally abot creating ladders whereas renegade decisions are about eliminating snakes. Not a great analogy, but it sort of explains how I see it.
My original point was that a full paragon playthrough, while naive, gives you potential batering chips with near enough every species, while a pure renegade playthrough is more of a placing all your eggs in one basket kind of thing with the focus on helping humanity and Cerberus.
You've also taken a lot of risks, but that's just how Mass Effect works. When a Paragon wants to build a bridge the birdge works. When a Renegade wants to build one the bridge catches on fire.
There's no depth or intelligence or logic to any of it. It is all contrived and arbitrary.
It would work, except you don't get any benefit for removing snakes. If anything, being nice to the snakes somehow magically gives you the option of taking them as allies if you do a cliche rescue or fetch quest.
You starting to see why I'm getting angry about the Bioware agenda?
incinerator950 wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
incinerator950 wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Paragon choices tend to forge alliances and friendships with other species,
No, not really. For every species you befriend you also alienate another.
Curing the krogan is not what the Council wants.
Restoring the rachni is not what the krogan want.
Empowering the geth is not what the quarians want.
Destroying the base is not what Cerberus wants.
Choices exist in a vaccuum though so nobody ever notices how shiftless and underhanded Paragon Shepard is.
It's called Diplomacy and compromise.
Something people on here seem to forget...
No, diplomacy means negotiating a solution. Nobody was there to negotiate when you freed the rachni queen. Nobody was there to negotiate when you rewrote the geth. Nobody was there to negotiate when you took the genophage cure data. Nobody was there to negotiate when you blew up that Collector base.
Paragon Shepard just does whatever the hell he wants. He does whatever he needs to do to feel good about himself. He never thinks twice about the possible consequences of his actions. And why should he? This is a BioWare game after all. BioWare wouldn't dare to punish the pure-Paragon Shepard for his completely irresponsible actions.
Nobody was there to even explain to EITHER side wether the krogan should be spared.
Or that the Geth weren't all mindless reaper followers.
Or that the Rachni weren't monsters.
You see paragon shepard's actions but do you see the rest of the galaxies, and by extention other peoples actions? I don't disagree that paragon players should be punished (and we will be...sadly not enough) but some of this is just heavy handed emotion driven response.
The collocter base was made by the reapers and would surely "take humanities soul/aka indoctrinate", therefor destroying it was as viable as keeping it.
The geth rewritting I'll give you but you could ask Legion his view on it; it was a hard moral choice to make but again killing vs saving.
The Rachni had been wiped out by the krogan needlessly. The Council never asked them to do so but the Krogan continued to wipe them out. Who was there to defend them?
I don't disagree that paragon shepard does whatever the hell he wants but so does Rengade shepard...that's the whole point of the game.
Paragon Shepard doesn't see what the rest of the Galaxy thinks. Shepard sees what Shepard thinks is right or wrong for the Galaxy. Moral dilemas are people's own thoughts, not the 100% fact correct answer.
But he is doing what he thinks would best help other people...and that's all anyone can do really.
We(in terms of shepard) can read trillions of minds and see every plot thread at once (no, not the player you silly people). I won't disagree that Paragon shep does what HE wants but he does what he THINKS will help everyone.
So do I, I believe executing dangerous persons help people to. AKA, Balak and Vido. Even if I read the script, I wouldn't change my decision.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Removing snakes does have the rather large benefit of removing risks. If you wanted to form alliances, then surely a mix of paragon and renegade is best. You want Krogan support? Kill the Rachni but save the Genophage cure. You must've realised that going full renegade was never going to win you any favours with anyone.incinerator950 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You provide just enough reason for as many species as posisble to side with you. The Krogan's desire for a cure will outweigh their anger at Shepard saving the Rachni Queen. I don't care if the Krogan like me for it, I'm just trying to get as much help as possible.Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The Krogan could be angered by you saving the Rachni, but you've also kept their cure.
The Council may be angered by you curing the Krogan, but you saved them too and so they owe you.
So at best you are keeping everybody neutral to you, but not really gaining anything.There aren't really any renegade decisions geared towards building bridges though - they're more geared towards eliminating threats. If we imagine it as, say, snakes and ladders - paragon decisions are generally abot creating ladders whereas renegade decisions are about eliminating snakes. Not a great analogy, but it sort of explains how I see it.
My original point was that a full paragon playthrough, while naive, gives you potential batering chips with near enough every species, while a pure renegade playthrough is more of a placing all your eggs in one basket kind of thing with the focus on helping humanity and Cerberus.
You've also taken a lot of risks, but that's just how Mass Effect works. When a Paragon wants to build a bridge the birdge works. When a Renegade wants to build one the bridge catches on fire.
There's no depth or intelligence or logic to any of it. It is all contrived and arbitrary.
It would work, except you don't get any benefit for removing snakes. If anything, being nice to the snakes somehow magically gives you the option of taking them as allies if you do a cliche rescue or fetch quest.
You starting to see why I'm getting angry about the Bioware agenda?
-Dead Council
-No Genophage cure
-Quarians in disarray upon revelation of Tali's father's experiments
-Legion handed to Cerberus
-No Rachni
It shouldn't be unexpected that doing all of these was going to make victory harder.
Hunter of Legends wrote...
King Minos wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
BlueMagitek wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
You still shouldn't kill Fist in cold blood.
It isn't cold blood if it's right after a fire fight (where he had everyone under his employ try to kill you). You didn't just painstakingly plan his death ahead of time. To kill in cold blood is to kill without being emotionally involved. After a fire fight, you certainly aren't in a state of "cold blooded".
But you've calmed down and he surrendered to you.
Killing him like that is cold blooded.
And why should he get mercy? He sent Tali to die.
We don't know the full extent of his crimes but sending someone into a trap to be killed off so you can loot their corpse for information to save money, why should a man like him live?
Because it's the right thing to do "for a paragon" shepard.
In all honesty he should be put on trial not killed without one; that is just me however. I only have Fist alive on ONE playthrough of 10.
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Luc0s_*
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
Hunter of Legends wrote...
Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Paragon choices tend to forge alliances and friendships with other species,
No, not really. For every species you befriend you also alienate another.
Curing the krogan is not what the Council wants.
Restoring the rachni is not what the krogan want.
Empowering the geth is not what the quarians want.
Destroying the base is not what Cerberus wants.
Choices exist in a vaccuum though so nobody ever notices how shiftless and underhanded Paragon Shepard is.
It's called Diplomacy and compromise.
Something people on here seem to forget...
No, diplomacy means negotiating a solution. Nobody was there to negotiate when you freed the rachni queen. Nobody was there to negotiate when you rewrote the geth. Nobody was there to negotiate when you took the genophage cure data. Nobody was there to negotiate when you blew up that Collector base.
Paragon Shepard just does whatever the hell he wants. He does whatever he needs to do to feel good about himself. He never thinks twice about the possible consequences of his actions. And why should he? This is a BioWare game after all. BioWare wouldn't dare to punish the pure-Paragon Shepard for his completely irresponsible actions.
Nobody was there to even explain to EITHER side wether the krogan should be spared.
Or that the Geth weren't all mindless reaper followers.
Or that the Rachni weren't monsters.
True enough, but it would be hard to balance without being too balanced. I personally agree with the idea that the Rachni alive should be better than the Rachni dead, even if 'overall increased effectiveness' would, technically, be equivalent in effect.Dave of Canada wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you wanted to balance rewards and not just cameos, the Noveria executive would be an excellent device to give Renegade players a short-term reward in ME2, while Paragon players get a grander reward in ME3. If Noveria Executive gave resources/credits/a tech upgrade if you killed the Rachni, then you'd get a tactical advantage in ME2 that would be countered by the strategic advantage Rachni saviors would get in ME3. Sparing the Rachni can still be the 'better' choice in terms of War Assets that affect the ending of ME3, but that doesn't mean Renegade choosers have to go without their own (more marginal) advantage.
Could remove the marginal reward, introduce new technology in ME3 they developed while they weren't under public surveillance. Paragon always seemed to be about friends / numbers while Renegade seemed to be about tech / might.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Removing snakes does have the rather large benefit of removing risks. If you wanted to form alliances, then surely a mix of paragon and renegade is best. You want Krogan support? Kill the Rachni but save the Genophage cure. You must've realised that going full renegade was never going to win you any favours with anyone.incinerator950 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You provide just enough reason for as many species as posisble to side with you. The Krogan's desire for a cure will outweigh their anger at Shepard saving the Rachni Queen. I don't care if the Krogan like me for it, I'm just trying to get as much help as possible.Saphra Deden wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The Krogan could be angered by you saving the Rachni, but you've also kept their cure.
The Council may be angered by you curing the Krogan, but you saved them too and so they owe you.
So at best you are keeping everybody neutral to you, but not really gaining anything.There aren't really any renegade decisions geared towards building bridges though - they're more geared towards eliminating threats. If we imagine it as, say, snakes and ladders - paragon decisions are generally abot creating ladders whereas renegade decisions are about eliminating snakes. Not a great analogy, but it sort of explains how I see it.
My original point was that a full paragon playthrough, while naive, gives you potential batering chips with near enough every species, while a pure renegade playthrough is more of a placing all your eggs in one basket kind of thing with the focus on helping humanity and Cerberus.
You've also taken a lot of risks, but that's just how Mass Effect works. When a Paragon wants to build a bridge the birdge works. When a Renegade wants to build one the bridge catches on fire.
There's no depth or intelligence or logic to any of it. It is all contrived and arbitrary.
It would work, except you don't get any benefit for removing snakes. If anything, being nice to the snakes somehow magically gives you the option of taking them as allies if you do a cliche rescue or fetch quest.
You starting to see why I'm getting angry about the Bioware agenda?
-Dead Council
-No Genophage cure
-Quarians in disarray upon revelation of Tali's father's experiments
-Legion handed to Cerberus
-No Rachni
It shouldn't be unexpected that doing all of these was going to make victory harder.
Killing Council makes things harder if you want their help.Saphra Deden wrote...
Why should the Council being dead make things harder, or the lack of a genophage cure?
Since when is curing the genophage desirable?
Since when are the rachni a force for good? (most especially at the time we make the decision)
Why is the Migrant Fleet being divided up a bad thing?
Legion I'll grant since Cerberus is bad in ME3, but at the time the choice was made it was a perfectly logical decision.
Retour en haut