176 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

GamerrangerX wrote...

-give collector base to ceberus
-kicking blue suns merc out of the window to his death"thane mission"
-lets the workers to die in the refinery on Zorya"Zaeed lotal mission?

I won't turn the topic into a moral debate about the base.  Especially because of the dilema of Metagaming and ME3's plot.
Yes, its also because you gave the Merc a chance to cooperate.  he'd order his squad to come running to attack you if the game allowed it (I've always had the moralty points to convince him to give you intel.) 

I think you can even look at the Collector Base as not being a moral choice.

It was built by the reapers and surely would allow indoctrination. It also would give valuable insight and intel on the enemy. It's less a moral decision than a tactical one.

I edited the post, go look at it too.  However, I agree on the Tactical decision.  I gave the base to Cerberus not for the Cerberus loyalty.  I did it because of trying to build assets, gathering technology and intel.  Even if I were to scrub the base and vent the Reaper Tech after TIM's..experiments.  The Collector Tech still surpasses Alliance warship technology.  Any edge we can get will help.

I'm not gonna lie, I always destroy the base because the threat of indontrination is too great.

If we only actually learned more about it on virmire than simple "Oh it rots your brain".

Only the Reaper Tech.  Collector Tech looks like it was an analogue probably based off the Prothean tech that the Reapers gave them to work with. 

Teh only Reaper tech I noticed was the frame they were making.  Maybe some other parts.  

[incinerator950]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Badpie wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

The Zaeed mission always ends the same way for me. I always save the people, paragon or renegade. To me it's just so stupid to let them die. Let innocent lives be lost for the sake of some personal vendetta? I don't need the guy to be loyal to me. I just need him to do the hell what I say dammit. Not gonna cry over him not liking me, particularly catering to his vengeful desire causes so many meaningless deaths. Zaeed still does his job even if he's not "loyal."

Yes, so does everyone.  However Zaeed's mission shows that not everyone will bow before Shepard without doing something more than major.  Its the reason why I love the concepts of Zaeed's mission, even if I have never done the Paragon side.  It actually puts more into it.  The same can be said for Sidonis and Harkin.

And that's kind of why I like those missions and why I hate them.  I like that you can make the decision that Garrus is being a total whiny toolbag in wanting to kill Sidonis and you can say that.  And I like that you can save the people in Zaeed's mission and say to him that you're the boss and he can quit whining about not getting his way.  I guess the idea of loyalty missions in general, even though they were fun seem kind of weird to me.  I don't need you to like me.  What I need for you to do is shut up, don't bother me with your crap, follow my orders and do your job so we all come out of this alive.  Not  "hey I saved your sister so do you like me now can we be friends that's good that's so important."  It's not really.

Not really sure where I stand on this... but think about this:

Say you don't help Zaeed take out Vido after purposfully traveling there to do so... who's to say that now he won't have a vendetta against you? You're on the SM and you take a bullet to the brain from behind... game over. 

We all know the ME metagaming will neeveerr allow that.

[Hunter of Legends]

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

GamerrangerX wrote...

-give collector base to ceberus
-kicking blue suns merc out of the window to his death"thane mission"
-lets the workers to die in the refinery on Zorya"Zaeed lotal mission?

I won't turn the topic into a moral debate about the base.  Especially because of the dilema of Metagaming and ME3's plot.
Yes, its also because you gave the Merc a chance to cooperate.  he'd order his squad to come running to attack you if the game allowed it (I've always had the moralty points to convince him to give you intel.) 

I think you can even look at the Collector Base as not being a moral choice.

It was built by the reapers and surely would allow indoctrination. It also would give valuable insight and intel on the enemy. It's less a moral decision than a tactical one.

I edited the post, go look at it too.  However, I agree on the Tactical decision.  I gave the base to Cerberus not for the Cerberus loyalty.  I did it because of trying to build assets, gathering technology and intel.  Even if I were to scrub the base and vent the Reaper Tech after TIM's..experiments.  The Collector Tech still surpasses Alliance warship technology.  Any edge we can get will help.

I'm not gonna lie, I always destroy the base because the threat of indontrination is too great.

If we only actually learned more about it on virmire than simple "Oh it rots your brain".

Only the Reaper Tech.  Collector Tech looks like it was an analogue probably based off the Prothean tech that the Reapers gave them to work with. 

Teh only Reaper tech I noticed was the frame they were making.  Maybe some other parts.  

Remember two key things though, the colectors have Dragons teeth (they brought husks with them) and they also, if you notice in the ship (mostly only on the Collector Base) there are definately what appears to be reaper artifacts and technology.

Based off those two things I only gave the base to cerberus on two playthroughs.

[ODST 3]

Knocking out that crazy guy in the shed on Eden Prime.

[mineralica]

King Minos wrote...

mineralica wrote...

In no particular order:

1. Forcing sedative on Talitha EDIT: or killing her. Never killed her, forgot about existense of such option
2. Sending crew on SM back without escort
3. Selling Legion to Cerberus
4. Punching reporter
5. Killing colonists on Feros

It was needed, she posed a threat to herself and to others. You have no idea how she would react if you gave her a pill, with her fragile mental state, she could of viewed that as a threat. Should of just fired a tranquilizer from afar.

Maybe. However, I see this mission more as "Shepard, please help to not traumatize her further" (Lt. Girard looked like capable of shooting at her hand or shooting tranquilizer) than "Shepard, do something". I wouldn't say it's  not sensible thing to do, it just looks too cold for me considering that Shepard doing this is Colonist.

[DPSSOC]

wirelesstkd wrote...
Interestingly, I think some of the actions shouldn't be "renegade" specifically. Electrocuting the Batarian on Garrus' recruitment is one of them. Doing that weakens the gunship for later battle. Another example is in the same mission when you have mech in your sights and you snipe it. How is that considered "renegade" ??? It's coming to kill you. And it's a mech. It you don't snipe it there, when the cut scene is over you sill have to kill it. Sheesh.

Hey you don't know that mech, he could have had a family waiting for him.  With his mech wife, mech children, and his little mech dog.

My top 5
5) Punching Manuel - Why?
4) Punching the Reporter
3) Leaving David - I did it once, reloaded and undid it
2) Killing Talitha - No, just no.
1) Giving the Admirals the evidence in Tali's LM - #1 how is this Renegade (both options were Paragon), #2 Why? it benefits no one.

[GamerrangerX]

GamerrangerX wrote...

-give collector base to ceberus
-kicking blue suns merc out of the window to his death"thane mission"
-lets the workers to die in the refinery on Zorya"Zaeed loyal mission?

also
-lets Garrus kill Sidonis"Garrus loyal mission"
-yelling at the admiralty board in the flotilla"Tali loyal mission"

[Dean_the_Young]

The two reporter punches are the worst of the lot, with little doubt, especially in light of the far superior Renegade choices already there.

The Tali loyalty choice in which you expose the evidence never struck me as Renegade: if anything, it should have been the Paragon option, since Paragon largely goes with 'lawful good' and 'not taking the easy way out' while perjury strikes me as far more Renegade. A clear case of the writers confusing 'Paragon' with 'nice' and 'Renegade' with 'not nice' which is a mistake.

The Legion loyalty mission completely confused me, since for the most part the mission itself cast brainwashing the Heretics as a more Renegade thing to do... fitting in with the Renegade themes of domination and force on others.


The Feros colonists struck me as poorly executed, since there was never any presented reason for why NOT to save the colonists, and the pro-Human tones of the Renegade spectrum made wiping out a Human colony counter-intuitive. As a moral delimma, it would have made far more sense if there were some specter of threat in keeping the colonists alive (galactic plague?), which would have made killing them the hard, galactically-responsible, and Paragon, thing to do: not nice, but 'necessary' for the Council's perspective of galactic stability. Then saving the Colonists would have been radical, risky, and otherwise 'Renegade' pro-Humanist beliefs at work.


As for the final one... I suppose it would have been ME2's depiction of the Genophage question, in which Renegade was the Council's status-quo standard, while the traditionally Council-politics aligned Paragon took the radically anti-establishment position of opposing the Cure.

Besides that it made the P/R spectrum more moralistic than political (where in ME1 agreeing with the Council was Paragon, and disagreeing was Renegade, since the terms were mostly from the Council's viewpoints), the spectrum could have been easily reversed. Paragons could have easily slid into the position of having the Genophage be their hard, morally questionable position that prioritizes the Council/Galaxy status quo, but doesn't leave out the possibility of reform (especially via Wrex). Much of the Renegade dialogue would just as well fit a Paragon.

Opposing the Genophage would have likewise made for an excellent case of the Renegades defying the galactic status quo, and opened up a new avenue of more Renegade-centric objections to the Genophage system. In addition to raising questions of the morality of sterilizing the descendants of people who once were your enemies, Renegade provides the spectrum of 'who will you genophage next' to challenge Mordin with. Who else does the STG have contingencies to neuter lest they become a threat... and is a galaxy in which genocide and sterilization are tools for policy really one we want to acquiess to, or should we challenge it? Add to it more Renegade justifications of keeping the cure data as a political tool to convince the Krogan to fight the Reapers ('at all costs' even), and the Genophage question would have allowed the Renegades to challenge, not defend, the status quo.

[darkiddd]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually pro-shooting an innocent civilian? How odd.

I'd kill people for fun if I could get away with it.

Okaaay.... 

[Hunter of Legends]

darkiddd wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Are people actually pro-shooting an innocent civilian? How odd.

I'd kill people for fun if I could get away with it.

Okaaay.... 

I find that response is quite needed on here.

Especially when I see ACUTAL requests for Legion/Tali romance.

[incinerator950]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

GamerrangerX wrote...

-give collector base to ceberus
-kicking blue suns merc out of the window to his death"thane mission"
-lets the workers to die in the refinery on Zorya"Zaeed lotal mission?

I won't turn the topic into a moral debate about the base.  Especially because of the dilema of Metagaming and ME3's plot.
Yes, its also because you gave the Merc a chance to cooperate.  he'd order his squad to come running to attack you if the game allowed it (I've always had the moralty points to convince him to give you intel.) 

I think you can even look at the Collector Base as not being a moral choice.

It was built by the reapers and surely would allow indoctrination. It also would give valuable insight and intel on the enemy. It's less a moral decision than a tactical one.

I edited the post, go look at it too.  However, I agree on the Tactical decision.  I gave the base to Cerberus not for the Cerberus loyalty.  I did it because of trying to build assets, gathering technology and intel.  Even if I were to scrub the base and vent the Reaper Tech after TIM's..experiments.  The Collector Tech still surpasses Alliance warship technology.  Any edge we can get will help.

I'm not gonna lie, I always destroy the base because the threat of indontrination is too great.

If we only actually learned more about it on virmire than simple "Oh it rots your brain".

Only the Reaper Tech.  Collector Tech looks like it was an analogue probably based off the Prothean tech that the Reapers gave them to work with. 

Teh only Reaper tech I noticed was the frame they were making.  Maybe some other parts.  

Remember two key things though, the colectors have Dragons teeth (they brought husks with them) and they also, if you notice in the ship (mostly only on the Collector Base) there are definately what appears to be reaper artifacts and technology.

Based off those two things I only gave the base to cerberus on two playthroughs.

Indeed, both of which Cerberus has had access to in ME 1.  I also know because of the metagaming Cerberus screwed up between ME 2 and ME 3.  Still, scrub the base, vent the Reaper tech into space.  I've always given Cerberus the base regardless of metagaming.  Not changing my opinion over it, even if it doesn't work in the end. 

[PrinceLionheart]

I electrocute the Batarian even when playing as a Paragon. I'd say that was fair game since you were going to kill the mercs anyway to protect Garrus/Archangel.

My top 5 would be:

• Punching al-Jilani.
• Siding with Morinth.
• Letting the Workers die during Zaeed's mission.
• Killing the Feros Colonists
• Accusing the Clerk of Racism to get a discount

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 05 février 2012 - 07:04 .

[Badpie]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Badpie wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

The Zaeed mission always ends the same way for me. I always save the people, paragon or renegade. To me it's just so stupid to let them die. Let innocent lives be lost for the sake of some personal vendetta? I don't need the guy to be loyal to me. I just need him to do the hell what I say dammit. Not gonna cry over him not liking me, particularly catering to his vengeful desire causes so many meaningless deaths. Zaeed still does his job even if he's not "loyal."

Yes, so does everyone.  However Zaeed's mission shows that not everyone will bow before Shepard without doing something more than major.  Its the reason why I love the concepts of Zaeed's mission, even if I have never done the Paragon side.  It actually puts more into it.  The same can be said for Sidonis and Harkin.

And that's kind of why I like those missions and why I hate them.  I like that you can make the decision that Garrus is being a total whiny toolbag in wanting to kill Sidonis and you can say that.  And I like that you can save the people in Zaeed's mission and say to him that you're the boss and he can quit whining about not getting his way.  I guess the idea of loyalty missions in general, even though they were fun seem kind of weird to me.  I don't need you to like me.  What I need for you to do is shut up, don't bother me with your crap, follow my orders and do your job so we all come out of this alive.  Not  "hey I saved your sister so do you like me now can we be friends that's good that's so important."  It's not really.

Not really sure where I stand on this... but think about this:

Say you don't help Zaeed take out Vido after purposfully traveling there to do so... who's to say that now he won't have a vendetta against you? You're on the SM and you take a bullet to the brain from behind... game over. 

Which would be stupid on Zaeed's part really.  In the middle of the fight for your lives you're gonna turn on the guy who's supposed to get you out of it?

I do enjoy the loyalty missions.  I just think that if it were more realistic (which would end up being a very short game and not nearly as fun) Shepard wouldn't be running around trying to make everyone happy when he had a mission to complete, which is why I enjoy the option of believably not gaining loyalty, though I do try to gain everyone's on my canon playthrough.  Zaeed is one I can live without, mainly because of the colossal d*ck move of allowing lots of people to burn to death just so you can get your jollies.

Modifié par Badpie, 05 février 2012 - 07:05 .

[incinerator950]

Badpie wrote...

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Badpie wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

The Zaeed mission always ends the same way for me. I always save the people, paragon or renegade. To me it's just so stupid to let them die. Let innocent lives be lost for the sake of some personal vendetta? I don't need the guy to be loyal to me. I just need him to do the hell what I say dammit. Not gonna cry over him not liking me, particularly catering to his vengeful desire causes so many meaningless deaths. Zaeed still does his job even if he's not "loyal."

Yes, so does everyone.  However Zaeed's mission shows that not everyone will bow before Shepard without doing something more than major.  Its the reason why I love the concepts of Zaeed's mission, even if I have never done the Paragon side.  It actually puts more into it.  The same can be said for Sidonis and Harkin.

And that's kind of why I like those missions and why I hate them.  I like that you can make the decision that Garrus is being a total whiny toolbag in wanting to kill Sidonis and you can say that.  And I like that you can save the people in Zaeed's mission and say to him that you're the boss and he can quit whining about not getting his way.  I guess the idea of loyalty missions in general, even though they were fun seem kind of weird to me.  I don't need you to like me.  What I need for you to do is shut up, don't bother me with your crap, follow my orders and do your job so we all come out of this alive.  Not  "hey I saved your sister so do you like me now can we be friends that's good that's so important."  It's not really.

Not really sure where I stand on this... but think about this:

Say you don't help Zaeed take out Vido after purposfully traveling there to do so... who's to say that now he won't have a vendetta against you? You're on the SM and you take a bullet to the brain from behind... game over. 

Which would be stupid on Zaeed's part really.  In the middle of the fight for your lives you're gonna turn on the guy who's supposed to get you out of it?

I do enjoy the loyalty missions.  I just think that if it were more realistic (which would end up being a very short game and not nearly as fun) Shepard wouldn't be running around trying to make everyone happy when he had a mission to complete, which is why I enjoy the option of believably not gaining loyalty, though I do try to gain everyone's on my canon playthrough.  Zaeed is one I can live without, mainly because of the colossal d*ck move of allowing lots of people to burn to death just so you can get your jollies.

I didn't see Zaeed smile when he knew the civilians burned.  He might have smiled at the idea of Vido burning, but when he turned away it was a cold, empty remorse.  Being satisfied finally after a decade.

[ADLegend21]

Badpie wrote...

The Zaeed mission always ends the same way for me. I always save the people, paragon or renegade. To me it's just so stupid to let them die. Let innocent lives be lost for the sake of some personal vendetta? I don't need the guy to be loyal to me. I just need him to do the hell what I say dammit. Not gonna cry over him not liking me, particularly catering to his vengeful desire causes so many meaningless deaths. Zaeed still does his job even if he's not "loyal."  It always feels dirty to me.  Like I have to "suck up" to Zaeed by letting him do whatever he wants.  Screw that.  haha

This. He would get punched all the time until I found out I could leave him there in the fire he started, then I just stopped playing his DLC outright when I realized you could only do it AFTER the SM.he's not needed for the mission really.

Choosing Morinth is really out of place, as is punching al-jilani , especially with MALE Shepard,

[K_Tabris]

I admit electrocuting the Batarian before recruiting archangel has a direct tactical impact on the mission, but I classify it as senseless violence. It's not going to be the same for everyone, but catching the guy unawares and zapping him to death felt too cold. =/

[ADLegend21]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Badpie wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

The Zaeed mission always ends the same way for me. I always save the people, paragon or renegade. To me it's just so stupid to let them die. Let innocent lives be lost for the sake of some personal vendetta? I don't need the guy to be loyal to me. I just need him to do the hell what I say dammit. Not gonna cry over him not liking me, particularly catering to his vengeful desire causes so many meaningless deaths. Zaeed still does his job even if he's not "loyal."

Yes, so does everyone.  However Zaeed's mission shows that not everyone will bow before Shepard without doing something more than major.  Its the reason why I love the concepts of Zaeed's mission, even if I have never done the Paragon side.  It actually puts more into it.  The same can be said for Sidonis and Harkin.

And that's kind of why I like those missions and why I hate them.  I like that you can make the decision that Garrus is being a total whiny toolbag in wanting to kill Sidonis and you can say that.  And I like that you can save the people in Zaeed's mission and say to him that you're the boss and he can quit whining about not getting his way.  I guess the idea of loyalty missions in general, even though they were fun seem kind of weird to me.  I don't need you to like me.  What I need for you to do is shut up, don't bother me with your crap, follow my orders and do your job so we all come out of this alive.  Not  "hey I saved your sister so do you like me now can we be friends that's good that's so important."  It's not really.

Not really sure where I stand on this... but think about this:

Say you don't help Zaeed take out Vido after purposfully traveling there to do so... who's to say that now he won't have a vendetta against you? You're on the SM and you take a bullet to the brain from behind... game over. 

and the second after the rest of the team proceeds to beat him to death whole Shepard's enhanced physique rengerates her health and then she finishes him off and then the team proceeds with the mission.

[Hunter of Legends]

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

GamerrangerX wrote...

-give collector base to ceberus
-kicking blue suns merc out of the window to his death"thane mission"
-lets the workers to die in the refinery on Zorya"Zaeed lotal mission?

I won't turn the topic into a moral debate about the base.  Especially because of the dilema of Metagaming and ME3's plot.
Yes, its also because you gave the Merc a chance to cooperate.  he'd order his squad to come running to attack you if the game allowed it (I've always had the moralty points to convince him to give you intel.) 

I think you can even look at the Collector Base as not being a moral choice.

It was built by the reapers and surely would allow indoctrination. It also would give valuable insight and intel on the enemy. It's less a moral decision than a tactical one.

I edited the post, go look at it too.  However, I agree on the Tactical decision.  I gave the base to Cerberus not for the Cerberus loyalty.  I did it because of trying to build assets, gathering technology and intel.  Even if I were to scrub the base and vent the Reaper Tech after TIM's..experiments.  The Collector Tech still surpasses Alliance warship technology.  Any edge we can get will help.

I'm not gonna lie, I always destroy the base because the threat of indontrination is too great.

If we only actually learned more about it on virmire than simple "Oh it rots your brain".

Only the Reaper Tech.  Collector Tech looks like it was an analogue probably based off the Prothean tech that the Reapers gave them to work with. 

Teh only Reaper tech I noticed was the frame they were making.  Maybe some other parts.  

Remember two key things though, the colectors have Dragons teeth (they brought husks with them) and they also, if you notice in the ship (mostly only on the Collector Base) there are definately what appears to be reaper artifacts and technology.

Based off those two things I only gave the base to cerberus on two playthroughs.

Indeed, both of which Cerberus has had access to in ME 1.  I also know because of the metagaming Cerberus screwed up between ME 2 and ME 3.  Still, scrub the base, vent the Reaper tech into space.  I've always given Cerberus the base regardless of metagaming.  Not changing my opinion over it, even if it doesn't work in the end. 

Of course not. As I said the reason for saving it a extaordinarily valuable. I just didn't like the risks; and would feel as much even if "paragon" got miffed.

[angry_peon]

NovinhaShepard wrote...


I admit electrocuting the Batarian before recruiting archangel has a direct tactical impact on the mission, but I classify it as senseless violence. It's not going to be the same for everyone, but catching the guy unawares and zapping him to death felt too cold. =/

By, the way... Is he really dead? I mean, we have no measure of how much energy is transmitted. For all we know, he could be only unconcious.
I wonder, because using electrocution is so unsafe if you really want to kill (and sterotypical for stunning in shooter games). Snapping his neck would have been both easier and potentially more quiet method.
If he's dead that would be kinda sad, because he seems to be a decent fellow, for a merc.

Edit: Yeah too late. 

Modifié par Varhjhin, 05 février 2012 - 07:36 .

[DayusMakhina]

PurebredCorn wrote...

NovinhaShepard wrote...

I admit electrocuting the Batarian before recruiting archangel has a direct tactical impact on the mission, but I classify it as senseless violence. It's not going to be the same for everyone, but catching the guy unawares and zapping him to death felt too cold. =/

It was never clear to me whether or not he was dead or just unconscious. I always assumed he was just unconscious. Maybe that's why I never really had a problem with doing it, well that and the tactical advantage is hard to resist.

That and the fact he's a mercenary attempting to kill Archangel. I understand why some people wouldn't like using the Renegade interrupts in the game, but when it comes to doing things to mercenaries i'm really at a loss at how anyone could feel bad about that. Merc's are guns for hire and spend almost all their time trying to kill you, so the renegade interrupts are just you beating them to the punch.

[GrandTurian]

I usually electrocute the batarian too. The tactical advantage just makes too much sense.

[Badpie]

PurebredCorn wrote...

NovinhaShepard wrote...

I admit electrocuting the Batarian before recruiting archangel has a direct tactical impact on the mission, but I classify it as senseless violence. It's not going to be the same for everyone, but catching the guy unawares and zapping him to death felt too cold. =/

It was never clear to me whether or not he was dead or just unconscious. I always assumed he was just unconscious. Maybe that's why I never really had a problem with doing it, well that and the tactical advantage is hard to resist.

Ha!  That's totally what I told myself with my renegade.  "He'll get over it."  I convinced myself he was merely zapped out cold.