756 réponses à ce sujet

[Femlob]

DxWill10 wrote...

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.

Let the (wo)man say his/her piece. It shouldn't affect you.

Modifié par Femlob, 07 février 2012 - 09:16 .

[Almostfaceman]

I see the point Saphra is making and I agree with it - however I do not concede that ME3 will fail in providing content for Renegades, since the game is unavailable for us to test this claim.
 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

[Hunter of Legends]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

[DJBare]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

You just sent a shudder through every renegade.

[Hunter of Legends]

DJBare wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

You just sent a shudder through every renegade.

I think the problems for both "sides" is empathy. They don't understand what it's like to look through a paragon shep's or renegade shep's eyes/mind.

Both moralities will have tough choices in ME3.

[DPSSOC]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
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.

Noit really; what the game "should" be is what the developer promised us, they have yet to deliver.

Rip504 wrote...
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?

Well you know Omega, that place that's basically run by mercs and pirates? Shep could run into a merc who was wronged/has something against Shepard and recognizes him/her. Just like the people who were helped by/owe something to Shepard do on Illium. It's not people hunting for Shepard, it's people who have a reason to hate Shepard happening upon him/her.

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

Now are we talking hard decisions for Paragon Shepard or Paragon players? Cause all the choices are hard when taken from Shepard's perspective, he/she doesn't know what's going to happen. The player however knows that blue will always work out for the best, so from that perspective there are no hard choices, it's just top right for good times. They could give you a Paragon option where Shepard tries to stop the Reapers by uniting the galaxy in song, and as ludicrous an idea as that is, the player knows it's going to work.

So yeah Paragon Shepard is going to have to make some hard decisions, but I highly doubt they'll break from the "blue and your through" system. But who knows, there's a first time for everything.

[Hunter of Legends]

DPSSOC wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
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.

Noit really; what the game "should" be is what the developer promised us, they have yet to deliver.

Rip504 wrote...
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?

Well you know Omega, that place that's basically run by mercs and pirates? Shep could run into a merc who was wronged/has something against Shepard and recognizes him/her. Just like the people who were helped by/owe something to Shepard do on Illium. It's not people hunting for Shepard, it's people who have a reason to hate Shepard happening upon him/her.

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

Now are we talking hard decisions for Paragon Shepard or Paragon players? Cause all the choices are hard when taken from Shepard's perspective, he/she doesn't know what's going to happen. The player however knows that blue will always work out for the best, so from that perspective there are no hard choices, it's just top right for good times. They could give you a Paragon option where Shepard tries to stop the Reapers by uniting the galaxy in song, and as ludicrous an idea as that is, the player knows it's going to work.

So yeah Paragon Shepard is going to have to make some hard decisions, but I highly doubt they'll break from the "blue and your through" system. But who knows, there's a first time for everything.

I picked all renegade intimidate for ME1 and ME2 for my renegon and he'll be fine for ME3.

It's the Paragon/Renegade choices that are distinctivly different.

[BlueMagitek]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I think the problems for both "sides" is empathy. They don't understand what it's like to look through a paragon shep's or renegade shep's eyes/mind.

Both moralities will have tough choices in ME3.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. 

Take the DA decision in ME 1.  Now, you have three options (two of which are the same, but allow you another way to roleplay your reason for it).  

1)  Risk the fate of the galaxy to save the Council; Shepard doesn't know how strong the Geth Armada is, or how strong Sovereign is.  He might have a general idea of the Alliance fleet, though.  
2)  Focus on Sovereign:  Shepard does know that Sovereign is trying to open the Citadel into a giant Mass Relay (as told to him by Vigil) to bring in the rest of the Reapers, who killed off the Protheans 50k years ago.  Let the DA and Council Fleet absorb as much of the Geth's fire as possible while the fleet focuses entirely on Sovvy.
3)  Let the Council die.  Never chose this option, so I can't really say anything.

Option 1 is risky; you're gambling the fate of the galaxy for the safety of three people (who will all die if Sovvy's plan works anyway).  Option 2 is the safest bet; all firepower will be put on Sovvy.  Option 3 is basically Option 2 with a vengence.

Option 1 is a High Risk, "High" Reward situation;  you might save the DA and stop Sovvy, or everything will go to hell.  Option 2 is a Lower Risk, Lower Reward situation; yeah, the DA is probably going to blow up, but everything the Alliance has is going to hit Sovvy, and if that doesn't take him out then you can die knowing you did everything you could to stop the Reapers.  

I feel it's completely irresponsible for most Shepards to take Option 1.  The threat of the Reapers is too great.  Now, if Shepard completed Hackett's missions and generally helped out the Alliance and put down the Geth, then they can argue that the Geth fleet is weaker (stopping the Geth in Geth Incursions), or that the Alliance is stronger (having given the Alliance leverage beforehand).  

But outside of roleplay, I can see why a person would take it.  Why not be the hero, right?  Or if you didn't like the Council and were a hardcore humanist (), why not take Option 3?  Unfortunately, this leaves Option 2 as the middle man out, with no difference between it and 3 in ME 2.

Moving on; I can see why a person doesn't want to kill the Rachni; it's genocide and the first contact (as the Rachni didn't have any contact outside of battle before).  But it's easy to make the argument for finishing off the Queen; they're known to be dangerous and the creature is asking you (after fighting through an army of Rachni) to take her at her word, despite her children's actions and her ancestor's actions.

There are more, such as the Base (which there are already enough topics on, so I don't want to convert this one), but let's just talk about David and Overlord for a moment.  Yes, yes what happened to him was wrong and horrible.  It's completely reasonable for a Shepard to want to take him out of there.  BUT, the Geth are still a problem.   Having a way to control them, to keep humanity safe (remember, the Geth get off on messing up human colonies), is worth one person's pain, isn't it?  And it isn't a "will it work/ won't it work" situation, you've been fighting Geth the entire time, you know it works.  Even if you take Legion's word about the Geth as truth (for some reason), why not have a backup just in case?

Empathy isn't the problem; it's one side having almost universally positive outcomes, while the other having negative or less than optimal outcomes almost universally (for the big options).  Yes, a lot of the little Renegade interupts do give you help in combat, that's great.  But the decisions made, they're treated as the default and rarely turn out as well (or have a positive that's different from what a paragon may have recieved) as the other options. 

I don't think anyone wants all paragon decisions to explode in their face, or for all renegade decisions to be the best choice.  I know I just want a mix of consequences for both sides; some outcomes are better paragon, some are better renegade.  Save the Council and it all worked out for you?  Fabulous.  Rachni turn out to be an ally?  Awesome.  How about keeping the Collector Base or keeping David in Overlord working out (as the best option of what to do)?

[Hunter of Legends]

BlueMagitek wrote...
 

I don't think anyone wants all paragon decisions to explode in their face, or for all renegade decisions to be the best choice.  I know I just want a mix of consequences for both sides; some outcomes are better paragon, some are better renegade.  Save the Council and it all worked out for you?  Fabulous.  Rachni turn out to be an ally?  Awesome.  How about keeping the Collector Base or keeping David in Overlord working out (as the best option of what to do)?

I won't do anything to spoil but what you're complaining about IS remidied in ME3...or at least better done.

Because naturally someone on here will feel Bioware didn't do enough...

[royard]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I think the problems for both "sides" is empathy. They don't understand what it's like to look through a paragon shep's or renegade shep's eyes/mind.

Both moralities will have tough choices in ME3.

There are more, such as the Base (which there are already enough topics on, so I don't want to convert this one), but let's just talk about David and Overlord for a moment.  Yes, yes what happened to him was wrong and horrible.  It's completely reasonable for a Shepard to want to take him out of there.  BUT, the Geth are still a problem.   Having a way to control them, to keep humanity safe (remember, the Geth get off on messing up human colonies), is worth one person's pain, isn't it?  And it isn't a "will it work/ won't it work" situation, you've been fighting Geth the entire time, you know it works.  Even if you take Legion's word about the Geth as truth (for some reason), why not have a backup just in case?

Right, because keeping the guy who is vengeful for being put in such pain in charge of all the geth would be a good idea?  Look, you just put this guy through hell.  Now you give him a synthetic army that only he can command.  Are you really sure about the risks here? 

About the council--it's not a simple "you lose 8 ships that could be fighting Sovvy."  It's "you lose 8 ships and gain the firepower of DA, which 'has almost as much firepower as the rest of the asari fleet combined.'"  You lose some firepower, and DA might not be at optimal capacity, but I would say it's a fair trade. 

Modifié par royard, 08 février 2012 - 01:58 .

[Hunter of Legends]

royard wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I think the problems for both "sides" is empathy. They don't understand what it's like to look through a paragon shep's or renegade shep's eyes/mind.

Both moralities will have tough choices in ME3.

There are more, such as the Base (which there are already enough topics on, so I don't want to convert this one), but let's just talk about David and Overlord for a moment.  Yes, yes what happened to him was wrong and horrible.  It's completely reasonable for a Shepard to want to take him out of there.  BUT, the Geth are still a problem.   Having a way to control them, to keep humanity safe (remember, the Geth get off on messing up human colonies), is worth one person's pain, isn't it?  And it isn't a "will it work/ won't it work" situation, you've been fighting Geth the entire time, you know it works.  Even if you take Legion's word about the Geth as truth (for some reason), why not have a backup just in case?

Right, because keeping the guy who is vengeful for being put in such pain in charge of all the geth would be a good idea?  Look, you just put this guy through hell.  Now you give him a synthetic army that only he can command.  Are you really sure about the risks here? 

About the council--it's not a simple "you lose 8 ships that could be fighting Sovvy."  It's "you lose 8 ships and gain the firepower of DA, which 'has almost as much firepower as the rest of the asari fleet combined.'"  You lose some firepower, and DA might not be at optimal capacity, but I would say it's a fair trade. 

Bingo.

[Mann42]

I have no idea who started this thread, but he summoned some deep seeded BSN angst. This thread was more than hijacked, it was impaled and turned into a husk.

But to be honest, watching BSN veterans freak out on each other is always entertaining. I lurk intermittently, and watching the stunning conclusion to Saphra's Cerberus/Renegade crusade has been amazing. I'm glad I kept reading.

I do generally agree with Saphra that there were a lot of missed opportunities to provide content to Renegade players. Most people seem to be caught up on the morality and what a 'Renegade' deserves, but I don't really think that justifies giving Renegade players less content. I really like a lot of the ideas that Saphra threw out, and none of them cheapen the impact of being a Renegade.

Bioware should be expected to provide compelling, and different, content for both story paths. Expecting anything less is giving Bioware an easy way out. Having special content for one path, while the other path gets an experience identical to someone who didn't import, cheapens replayability, and it severely damages the illusion of choice, which is all Bioware games are in the first place. 

I can understand why Rengade players feel cheated, and it's surprising that so many other people need to villify them for their opinions.  

With all that said, I don't really care. I don't have a horse in this race. I've enjoyed every minute of my Mass Effect playthroughs, and I have 4 characters of varying alignments imported through both games. A lack of content isn't my problem, and the illusion has held up for me (because I don't try to disbelieve).

[incinerator950]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

I have a tougher time deciding what Wine I want to drink than these decisions.

[Hunter of Legends]

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

I have a tougher time deciding what Wine I want to drink than these decisions.

I empathize with my shepards though.

Makes the series soooo much better, and honestly the best series to date.

[BlueMagitek]

royard wrote...

Right, because keeping the guy who is vengeful for being put in such pain in charge of all the geth would be a good idea?  Look, you just put this guy through hell.  Now you give him a synthetic army that only he can command.  Are you really sure about the risks here? 

About the council--it's not a simple "you lose 8 ships that could be fighting Sovvy."  It's "you lose 8 ships and gain the firepower of DA, which 'has almost as much firepower as the rest of the asari fleet combined.'"  You lose some firepower, and DA might not be at optimal capacity, but I would say it's a fair trade. 

-Point





























-Your head


They were just examples of where the Renegade decision would be the optimal, if not necessarily moral, choice. 

[incinerator950]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

I have a tougher time deciding what Wine I want to drink than these decisions.

I empathize with my shepards though.

Makes the series soooo much better, and honestly the best series to date.

I empathize with a lot of things, Shepard as well.  Hence why I try to think about what I'm doing.  Except the Biotic God, or Ashley.  Those were Coin tosses.

[WizenSlinky0]

Woah. This place got all Egyptian on me.

[Hunter of Legends]

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

I have a tougher time deciding what Wine I want to drink than these decisions.

I empathize with my shepards though.

Makes the series soooo much better, and honestly the best series to date.

I empathize with a lot of things, Shepard as well.  Hence why I try to think about what I'm doing.  Except the Biotic God, or Ashley.  Those were Coin tosses.

How could you not spare the BIOTIC GOD!

He was too damn hilarious to die...

[incinerator950]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

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.

Coolness, the issue is that they could've been... especially to back the claim that no choice is "punished."  To make a true non-punishing outcome, there need to be advantages and drawbacks... not "all-advantage" or "all-drawbacks."

The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

I have a tougher time deciding what Wine I want to drink than these decisions.

I empathize with my shepards though.

Makes the series soooo much better, and honestly the best series to date.

I empathize with a lot of things, Shepard as well.  Hence why I try to think about what I'm doing.  Except the Biotic God, or Ashley.  Those were Coin tosses.

How could you not spare the BIOTIC GOD!

He was too damn hilarious to die...

I didn't care enough, so I flipped a coin.  Ashley survived Virmire because of it, although to be honest I don't actually like either of them.  

It comes with the Apathy, other times the Penguin God of Lag requires a sacrifice.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

If that's a Renegade option, then fine.  And what's so hard about picking the blue button to get your guaranteed best outcome?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 février 2012 - 05:49 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I like it that emotional paragons will going to Sacrifice their squads in ME3!

[WizenSlinky0]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

I like it that emotional paragons will going to Sacrifice their squads in ME3!

You like the fact I'm going to start crying? That hurts.

[Hunter of Legends]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
The trade-off is renegades might have to play nice.

Paragons are gonna have some REAL hard decisions in ME3.

If that's a Renegade option, then fine.  And what's so hard about picking the blue button to get your guaranteed best outcome?

Because the "best" outcome is sending character/species/groups/armies to their death.

Most likely characters the player cares about.

[Hunter of Legends]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

I like it that emotional paragons will going to Sacrifice their squads in ME3!

Yes, it's called good writing and story telling.