756 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
It sounds like we're moving away from whether Paragon favoritism exists... to trying to justify why it's there.

Because most of the decisions and repercussions CAN be justified. I won't deny there is a more heavy favor towards paragon in ME3 but that can also be semi-justified in what you need to do in ME3.

ME1 and ME2 allowed both playstyles to be valid and 100% justified IMHO. ME3 had to swing one way or the other; either bring the galaxy apart or destroy it outright.

I call BS.
There is no "had to".
There is no "destroy or bring together".

[Hunter of Legends]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no "destroy or bring together".

Renegade actions don't build bridges. That is a fact.

That is what ruthless does.

[Goldendroid]

Saphra, I have no idea who you are, but first impressions show you as, well, a dick. 

To come on to a forum for the sole purpose of preaching to everyone that you will not buy the game when guaranteed 99% of everybody here will, is pointless. Thats like an atheist walking into a house full of creationists and pointlessing preaching about the lack of god.

I dont do that, and I wouldnt pointlessly go on about the "crappiness" of Mass Effect 3, on a place where everybody will buy it no matter how much people complain.

Edit: I do love the ME series, and ME3 is set to be another cracking game. Don't take it like I do not like the game, I will never regret getting ME1 and ME2 from the sale list 2 years ago. Best decision gaming wise.

Modifié par Goldendroid, 07 février 2012 - 08:19 .

[AlanC9]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Also, I feel I should probably report your post for mentioning the leak. In fact this entire thread may need to be shut down. I should ask Chris for clarification on that.

Report and let Chris sort it out.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
It sounds like we're moving away from whether Paragon favoritism exists... to trying to justify why it's there.

Because most of the decisions and repercussions CAN be justified. I won't deny there is a more heavy favor towards paragon in ME3 but that can also be semi-justified in what you need to do in ME3.

ME1 and ME2 allowed both playstyles to be valid and 100% justified IMHO. ME3 had to swing one way or the other; either bring the galaxy apart or destroy it outright.

Justifying is a whole other ball game... and doesn't excuse the lack of creative alternatives that can hold their own against Paragon outcomes.  Casey talked about the story being able to diverge in wildly different directions... so there's still no excuse for not providing pluses and minuses to decisions instead of keeping all the up-sides exclusive to Paragon choices.  They could've done it... they just didn't/haven't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no "destroy or bring together".

Renegade actions don't build bridges. That is a fact.

That is what ruthless does.

No, that is not a definition of ruthless, I'm sorry.
Check your dictionary.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Goldendroid wrote...
I dont do that, and I wouldnt pointlessly go on about the "crappiness" of Mass Effect 3, on a place where everybody will buy it no matter how much people complain.

Who is this Everyone in who's name you are speaking? Do I know the guy?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 07 février 2012 - 08:30 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
2.) Developer Bias-
Should it happen? In theory, not really. But if bioware decides that the paragon route should without a doubt prove the "correct" path it is not really our place to say they are wrong.

Yeah well, I disagree. They are wrong. And it is my place to say it.

They are wrong because it contradicts their marketed intentions for the series.  There is no "tough choices" when you know the Paragon choices will yield the best results.  Essentially it's not even a choice anymore... it's the "blue/best outcome button."

Out of all the choices to choose from (neutral choices included), the blue choice exclusively... and consistently... gets the job done with the least cost and the most content/story continuity/positive plot benefits.

I already stated in the original context that the major problem was they led people to believe both sides would recieve the same treatment.

However, it is impossible to fault Bioware for sinking their beliefs into their game. If every single paragon decision blew up in my face in ridiculously explosive fashion, I still would not be able to complain. Would I enjoy the game anywhere near as much? Most definitely not.

But really, how anyone can claim to be right about what the game *should* do when they have no hand in the development...is pretty foolish.

Their biggest mistake was their overzealous marketing. Because they definitely led players to believe both paths had at least some merit to following.

Sinking their beliefs into the game is not what I fault.  The fault is that they've essentially given a cheat code to the perceptive player for what the best outcome will be (before even hearing the choice you have to make).  You always know that regardless of what happens, the other choices would fair worse or be completely unnecessary.... regardless of what's at stake or what you're up against.

And even then, it's not 'just' about the up-sides... but content and story continuity in general.  Non-Paragon choices have been relegated to (essentially) afterthoughts to be squeezed in (time/budget permitting)... otherwise, it's cut and/or treated as if a new player hopped on.

ex)  The large plot gap between the end of ME2 and premise of ME3.  Uh... what happened between Shepard and Cerberus if you kept the base?  We already knew at the end of ME2 that Cerberus would be Shepard's enemy if we picked the Paragon choice... but the Renegade one seems like it'll just be tacked on (as the plot will continue to wrap around Paragon decisions).

New players = "Oh, didn't you know?  Cerberus is a major enemy in this game."  (which is the same line given to those who made a non-Paragon choice).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 07 février 2012 - 08:42 .

[Hunter of Legends]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no "destroy or bring together".

Renegade actions don't build bridges. That is a fact.

That is what ruthless does.

No, that is not a definition of ruthless, I'm sorry.
Check your dictionary.

Ruthless people taking ruthless actions are less likely to build bridges than people who are diplomatic.

That is the fact of the matter. Take it or leave it.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no "destroy or bring together".

Renegade actions don't build bridges. That is a fact.

That is what ruthless does.

Different bridges.  Jack Bauer and Gregory House are pretty ruthless individuals who burn as many bridges as they build... and (even against their Paragon counterparts) go on to achieve greater things than their alternatives could've done.

[Femlob]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Ruthless people taking ruthless actions are less likely to build bridges than people who are diplomatic.

That is the fact of the matter. Take it or leave it.

People who are trusting are also more likely to be taken advantage of.

That is the fact of the matter. Take it or leave it.

True enough.

If you're optimistic and prefer to see the good in people, someone will inevitably take advantage of you. It's a fact of life. I choose to not let that change me; I'll pick taking my losses over having to distrust everyone any day of the week.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Being ruthless is not about "trust" or being "taken advantage of" if you ask me...

It's about getting the job done before too many people pay for it (see Jack Bauer).

[Femlob]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Being ruthless is not about "trust" or being "taken advantage of" if you ask me...

It's about getting the job done before too many people pay for it (see Jack Bauer).

Fair point.

Jack Bauer was willing to become what he fought for the sake of accomplishing his objectives. "I do it so you don't have to," and all that. That's not something I could ever do.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Femlob wrote...

True enough.

If
you're optimistic and prefer to see the good in people, someone will
inevitably take advantage of you. It's a fact of life. I choose to not
let that change me; I'll pick taking my losses over having to distrust
everyone any day of the week.

Which is why I'd like to see balance.

Someone who is mistrusting will turn away people who genuinely want to help them or need help or what-have-you.

However they will avoid the malicious types and not be taken advantage of.

The trusting person is the opposite.

So it should roughly balance out in the end.

I suppose - though the mistrusting individual is likely to pile up a bigger body count, which unbalances things in and of itself.

Modifié par Femlob, 07 février 2012 - 09:05 .

[Rip504]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Why seek out revenge on someone who has been dead for 2 years?
During the events of ME2,the galaxy only hears a rumor that Shepard may be alive.
In a storied plot,alot of what yall claim does not make sense.

Nor does it makes sense for hte all the people Pagaron Shep eouncoutnered congregate all at the same tiem and same place.

How about we remove hte Rachnii ambasador? Or a few other characters from the paragon path? Would you like it? No, you wouldn't.

So your whole long rant about how nothing is wrong and we all got what we deserved and all is equal and fair is utter crap.

Nope. Paragon encounters are random. Both Shepard & Gianni just happen to be on Illium,same with Rachni asari encounter. Asari at the krogan base. It goes with the story,for the most part. Now some merc on a personal vendetta for a dead Shep showing up 2 years after his/her death? How does that make any sense?
I personally take some of these Paragon encounters out of my own playthrough,so no your comment to me was & is utter crap. It is and always will be about choice,not content.

[eye basher]

Smart money says don't trust anyone because even family can stab you in the back.

[Femlob]

eye basher wrote...

Smart money says don't trust anyone because even family can stab you in the back.

Yeah, it's smart money.

I just don't want to live like that.

[Hunter of Legends]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Ruthless people taking ruthless actions are less likely to build bridges than people who are diplomatic.

That is the fact of the matter. Take it or leave it.

People who are trusting are also more likely to be taken advantage of.

That is the fact of the matter. Take it or leave it.

And that happens in ME 3...I also never debated that fact.

Renegades build different kinds of bridges...thing is it's not the ones you should  be building.

[Hunter of Legends]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no "destroy or bring together".

Renegade actions don't build bridges. That is a fact.

That is what ruthless does.

Different bridges.  Jack Bauer and Gregory House are pretty ruthless individuals who burn as many bridges as they build... and (even against their Paragon counterparts) go on to achieve greater things than their alternatives could've done.

Don't disagree.

They aren't enough/the right kind of bridges though.

[DxWill10]

So let me get this straight Safra.

You think the best use of your time is spent on the forums of a game you'll never play? You really have nothing better to do? Either your life is more boring than a rock's or you are in fact planning on buying the game.

Either way, I'm glad I'm not you.