266 réponses à ce sujet

[AxisEvolve]

Aren't most Renegade options "taking the easy way" anyway? Seems that way to me.

[silentassassin264]

Well as you said. Bioware has not been the greatest with showing morality. Cerberus for example was always shown to be a colossal messer upper of things. They managed to get raising the dead with Lazarus but generally failed everything else. In addition, they clearly wanted you to hate Cerberus. One of the Devs (can't remember) said you were supposed to be more like the strange bedfellows trope with Cerberus and that of course disregarded whether you were Paragon or Renegade even if logic would dictate that a Renegade would support a renegade black ops program. To pretty much force the issue on you, Cerberus had all the brute force tasteless things you mentioned so they can have kind of a "even Renegades should not be for this" type sentiment.

And you are right. If David had been the perpetrator doing this for his brother, it would have been so much more interesting but then it would be a black and white Cerberus is bad issue. Keep in mind that even if you side with Cerberus because you feel it was justified, your Shepard still punches Dr. Archer regardless of how you feel just because the team wants you to be outraged and appalled regardless.

As far as Teltin again. I already agreed that made no sense but it also was not Cerberus. It was a bunch of sadists who long since forgot their purpose and were doing things for the evulz. Principally what happened on Teltin makes no sense. Even if you did make a superweapon biotic girl, she would resent you for you know repeatedly raping and torturing her. She would have never been under their control. Common sense would dictate being loving and getting her to give you undying loyalty so she would do anything you wanted her to do because she loved you. If she ended up a superbiotic and was angry with you, common sense said she would kill you as soon as she got the chance which was exactly what happened. It was mind numbing stupidity at it's finest.

[Dean_the_Young]

AxisEvolve wrote...

Aren't most Renegade options "taking the easy way" anyway? Seems that way to me.

Depends by what you consider 'easy.'

Some do lean towards pragmaticism, which is 'easy' if you like being pragmatic. Others cling towards necessity arguments, which makes no such implication in regards to morality. Many people, after all, can't bring themselves to select Renegade options for fear of sounding mean. That would make it 'hard' for them.

[Polka14]

I was thinking that choosing paragon or renegade as the main side will not make any significant impact on the story. It may make the player feel better if they make Commander Shepard act as they think he or she should act but the end result would be the same. I think a larger amount of renegade vs. paragon comes from the concept of needing one side or another to complete all choices and solve all squadmate disputes (ME2). More minor consequences but nothing I would worry about personally.

[AxisEvolve]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Depends by what you consider 'easy.'

Some do lean towards pragmaticism, which is 'easy' if you like being pragmatic. Others cling towards necessity arguments, which makes no such implication in regards to morality. Many people, after all, can't bring themselves to select Renegade options for fear of sounding mean. That would make it 'hard' for them.

Thanks..

I don't do much Renegade options so I don't really know. The few I've done have seemed like easy way out situations but I don't have the full perspective on the matter.

Modifié par AxisEvolve, 25 février 2012 - 02:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Well as you said. Bioware has not been the greatest with showing morality. Cerberus for example was always shown to be a colossal messer upper of things. They managed to get raising the dead with Lazarus but generally failed everything else.

This is a statistically impossible claim to make, since we have a very biased source that contradicts the context. If Cerberus failed at everything else we don't see, then they wouldn't exist as they do because the authorities would break them up and their backers wouldn't waste the moeny. They do exist. Ergo, they must produce results.

We don't get to see them, which is bad writing, but the 'Cerberus is inept' argument fails to stand on its own.

In addition, they clearly wanted you to hate Cerberus. One of the Devs (can't remember) said you were supposed to be more like the strange bedfellows trope with Cerberus and that of course disregarded whether you were Paragon or Renegade even if logic would dictate that a Renegade would support a renegade black ops program. To pretty much force the issue on you, Cerberus had all the brute force tasteless things you mentioned so they can have kind of a "even Renegades should not be for this" type sentiment.

Bioware does the 'strange bedfellows' with all sorts of factions. Pretty much every character you recruit in ME1, for example, starts with the 'this person is ominous/dangerous/untrustworthy' foreshadowing, before turning into woobies by the end of their loyalty mission. Even fan favorites, like Wrex and Garrus, aren't exactly introduced in the most positive of manners: Wrex threatens murder, and Garrus endangers a hostage.


The tasteless depiction of Cerberus is a weakness of Bioware against their own stated attempt, not a point. Bioware is just naturally clumsy at amorality. (See: Morinth.)

And you are right. If David had been the perpetrator doing this for his brother, it would have been so much more interesting but then it would be a black and white Cerberus is bad issue. Keep in mind that even if you side with Cerberus because you feel it was justified, your Shepard still punches Dr. Archer regardless of how you feel just because the team wants you to be outraged and appalled regardless.

How would it be black and white if a massacre is kicked off by a misunderstanding, as opposed to a baseless crucification?

That doesn't make much sense.

As far as Teltin again. I already agreed that made no sense but it also was not Cerberus. It was a bunch of sadists who long since forgot their purpose and were doing things for the evulz. Principally what happened on Teltin makes no sense. Even if you did make a superweapon biotic girl, she would resent you for you know repeatedly raping and torturing her. She would have never been under their control. Common sense would dictate being loving and getting her to give you undying loyalty so she would do anything you wanted her to do because she loved you. If she ended up a superbiotic and was angry with you, common sense said she would kill you as soon as she got the chance which was exactly what happened. It was mind numbing stupidity at it's finest.

Common sense would dictate decent courtesy. Uncommon sense would suggest manufacturing stockholm syndrome.

Cerberus doesn't need to be nice to be effective, and it doesn't need to be cruel to be evil. There are a lot of ways to hit the moral-ambiguity equilibrium without being moral or cruel.


Imagine if Cerberus raised aliens from birth as if they were Human? Humans in alien skins, to infiltrate, spy, and assassinate... and with a whole load of emotional baggage? 

[silentassassin264]

AxisEvolve wrote...

Aren't most Renegade options "taking the easy way" anyway? Seems that way to me.

Most of the renegade options are taking the practical response.  Well except for when they clearly want to add an evil option for lulz and then they give it to the Renegade.

For example,
On Feros, the practical thing to do when surrounded be a bunch of mind controlled colonists is to do the Samara thing and gun them down.  The compassionate yet possibly stupid option is to use some random nerve grenade from someone who clearly just got into the loop that for all you know would send the colonists into a berserker frenzy.

The Rachni queen is not an individual but instead is a repository of the genetic memory of her people who for all the galaxy knows are a bunch of violent psychopaths.  The practical thing is to kill her and be done.  The compassionate thing to do is to let her go knowing full well that she could have trolled you and proceeded to begin building a revenge army.

At the battle of the Citadel you have the option to wait and take down Soveriegn and end the threat of imminent Reaper invasion or sacrifice you army to save the Council.  The practical thing is to wait until you get a clear shot since it looks like you will need all the firepower you can get.  The idiot response is to throw away a good portion of you army to save the morons who endangered everyone in the first place.  Really the paragon option here is putting the entire galaxy at risk just to save the council.  If Sovereign opens the relay and brings Harbinger and crew in because you couldn't get a real shot at him you would look really stupid.

Etc. Etc.

[Nathan Redgrave]

GodWood wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...
There was nothing pragmatic about wiping out the colony on Feros.

You're out numbered. The bombs are untested and the person who gave them to you only heard about the thorian (from you) literally seconds prior. And you had no knowledge of how long the concussion lasts.

When you're trapped in that little hall way on the way to the thorian they could all have woken up and stormed you.

That is a rather iffy pragmatism, there. I'd say keep up a halfway decent rear guard and it'd still be well worth the risk. Then, if things aren't working, give the order to shoot to kill.

Killing the Rachni out of fear of what they MIGHT become is a genocidal act, nothing "pragmatic" about that.

The rachni are a race of bugs that threatened the entire galaxy, have had no evidence of being peaceful or negotiable, can literally colonize a planet in days and still have extreme tensions with the races of today.

If you assume that they're nice now there's still the extreme risk that they could be indoctrinated and turned against you. Now before you Hurr and spew the typical "But every can be indoctrinated so by your logic everyone should be killed [hurrdurr]" remember that if ONE queen becomes indoctrinated ALL of it's drones and so on become indoctrinated as well.

I would argue that it depends very largely on at what point in the game players reach Noveria. My first blind run brought me there last, even post-Virmire, so I knew enough about Reapers and Indoctrination to connect the dots and realize that the initial Rachni Wars were likely instigated by Sovereign or another source of Indoctrination, ergo I was able to make the educated supposition that the Rachni weren't naturally as violent as the ones who had terrorized the galaxy, which is a safe enough bet at that stage that releasing the Rachni Queen may be interpreted as all-around preferable to genocide, especially in light of how reasonable the Rachni Queen appeared to be (more than anything, because she was willing to admit and explain that the lab-bred insane rachni children were beyond salvation and would only cause harm if left alive).

At an earlier point in the game, before the Reaper threat becomes so clearly defined, letting the Rachni go would be foolhardy at best. You simply don't have enough information for releasing the Rachni to be feasible. Post-Virmire, a Renegade player might even consider it worth the risk for the prospect of a possible ally against the Reapers (and there is, in fact, a Renegade dialogue option where Shepard states this as the intent when speaking with the Council), but the earlier in and the less info you have, the shakier and shakier the Paragon option seems.

Yes, well at the time the choice was let the DA die to focus on Sovereign or risk the entire galaxy and all life within it to save one ship.

That's not entirely the thing, though; Shepard can and really SHOULD consider what happens after the battle with Sovereign, because frankly whether the Battle of the Citadel is won or not, there's still a Reaper horde out there intending to invade and doing everything in your power to make sure the galaxy is stable and united against them is only prudent. Allowing the leaders of galactic government to perish would destabilize the establishment, and appearing to "sacrifice" those leaders could very well reflect badly on humanity, making it harder to garner support from other species against the Reaper menace. Ergo, saving the Council is a risk that may yet be worth taking.

It's rather telling that there are Renegade AND Paragon endings for both saving and sacrificing the Council--the game expects players to reason things out in unexpected ways. Not like ME2, where anyone who destroys the Collector Base is doing so because they don't want to let fear compromise who they are... which is the silliest damn thing a Renegade would say, and really underlines how much more cut-and-dry that choice was attempting to be.

Not all Renegades would necessarily be willing to trust or support Cerberus even enough to leave them with tech that could possibly help in the long run; in fact, a Renegade is often more wary of duplicity than a Paragon, and even Miranda, who has very Renegade views on how things should be done, is wary of giving the Illusive Man the base. It bugs the ever-loving crap out of me that Shepard isn't allowed to show half as much depth when refusing to preserve it for Cerberus.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 25 février 2012 - 02:24 .

[Dean_the_Young]

For an example of how Cerberus could pass the morality event horizon without any cruelty....

[Dean_the_Young]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...


That is a rather iffy pragmatism, there. I'd say keep up a halfway decent rear guard and it'd still be well worth the risk. Then, if things aren't working, give the order to shoot to kill.

This brings to mind something I PMd with someone recently, about how the Big Decisions could have been re-balanced in sensibility if they were recast with a more consistent morality system.




Given that ME1 gave P/R political undertones in regards to political loyalties, it always annoyed me that all the choices but the last presented the Renegade as the enforcer of the status quo, and the Paragon as the destabilizer of the Council's order.

If you were to make it consistent, and genuinely a mixed morality system,
Paragon should have been 'idealistic Council supporters/tools', a well meaning but ultimately Council-submissive idealist, and Renegade 'destabilizing Alliance xenonationalists' who may be racist and ugly but actually is a Renegade against someone's (the Council's) viewpoint. Both have advantages, but both have flaws: the Paragon may sincerely believe in
peace, justice, and virtue, but it's as defined by the Council. The
Renegade may be a xeno-centric aggressive ******, but also not inclined
to repeat the sins of the Council races just because.

Recast the Feros and Noveria decisions as well, and actually make the Paragon decisions more positively validated by the Council, while the Renegade decisions approved by Udina.




With the Rachni Queen, sparring her is the more disruptive decision, while killing her is the galactic stability/Council precident.

I'd have written it as the Renegade either doing it to spite the Council on moralistic grounds ('unlike them aliens, we won't commit genocide'), or nakedly seeking an ally for humanity: benevolence is not the deciding factor. The Paragon might regret it, but makes an argument about Galactic Stability and the Council's own decision.

The Council largely approves if you killed the Queen and did the 'hard but necessary task for galactic stability.' It's nearly livid if you let the Queen go. Udina reflects the Council line, but if you kept the Queen he'll foreshadow trying to make contact.




On Feros, I'd have cast the Thorian as a biological hazard that needed to be contained. A risk of galactic epidemic of some sort, with the Council ordering that not one infected individual get off planet. Add that an effort by the Thorian to try and send some colonists off world, where it could spread its control....

By re-casting the context, killing the colonists is course for galactic
stability (a key word). Shepard is a Paragon not because Shepard refuses
to kill, but because Shepard refuses to put his/her species above the
galactic good, and isn't afraid to make the Hard Choices necessary as a
Spectre. The Council mourns the loss of the colony, but approves of
Shepard personally.

Xenonationalist Renegade Shepard, however, refuses to wipe out a Human colony. Bucking the expectations of his/her superiors, Shepard risks great danger and successfully saves the colonists and stops the Thorian. Though it worked out in the end, the Council is wary of what you were willing to risk for a human colony.

I would argue that it depends very largely on at what point in the game players reach Noveria. My first blind run brought me there last, even post-Virmire, so I knew enough about Reapers and Indoctrination to connect the dots and realize that the initial Rachni Wars were likely instigated by Sovereign or another source of Indoctrination, ergo I was able to make the educated supposition that the Rachni weren't naturally as violent as the ones who had terrorized the galaxy, which is a safe enough bet at that stage that releasing the Rachni Queen may be interpreted as all-around preferable to genocide, especially in light of how reasonable the Rachni Queen appeared to be (more than anything, because she was willing to admit and explain that the lab-bred insane rachni children were beyond salvation and would only cause harm if left alive).

At an earlier point in the game, before the Reaper threat becomes so clearly defined, letting the Rachni go would be foolhardy at best. You simply don't have enough information for releasing the Rachni to be feasible. Post-Virmire, a Renegade player might even consider it worth the risk for the prospect of a possible ally against the Reapers (and there is, in fact, a Renegade dialogue option where Shepard states this as the intent when speaking with the Council), but the earlier in and the less info you have, the shakier and shakier the Paragon option seems.

I largely agree with this. Players know to read into foreshadowing and tropes, but from a non-metagaming perspective the excuse of Indoctrination is pretty far-fetched, and the Rachni Queen's appeal is even weaker. Until after Virmire, you're basically taking the words of willing partners of Saren that they were somehow cooerced into doing what they signed up to.

Not all Renegades would necessarily be willing to trust or support Cerberus even enough to leave them with tech that could possibly help in the long run; in fact, a Renegade is often more wary of duplicity than a Paragon, and even Miranda, who has very Renegade views on how things should be done, is wary of giving the Illusive Man the base. It bugs the ever-loving crap out of me that Shepard isn't allowed to show half as much depth when refusing to preserve it for Cerberus.

In some ways, I wish that we had been permanently antagonistic towards Cerberus regardless... but for different reasons.

Paragon Shepards could have hated Cerberus on the grounds of being generally immoral and trying to overthrow the established Council system. Both the goals and means are abhorrent.

Renegades Shepards could have hated Cerberus as an Alliance nationalist, seeing Cerberus as a threat to the Alliance, and blasting Cerberus for killing as many Humans as it has.


Of course, that would tie better with the recasting in ME1 mentioend above...

[silentassassin264]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]silentassassin264 wrote...

Well as you said. Bioware has not been the greatest with showing morality. Cerberus for example was always shown to be a colossal messer upper of things. They managed to get raising the dead with Lazarus but generally failed everything else.[/quote]This is a statistically impossible claim to make, since we have a very biased source that contradicts the context. If Cerberus failed at everything else we don't see, then they wouldn't exist as they do because the authorities would break them up and their backers wouldn't waste the moeny. They do exist. Ergo, they must produce results.

We don't get to see them, which is bad writing, but the 'Cerberus is inept' argument fails to stand on its own.
[/quote] 
This is statistically proven by the husks, thorian creepers, and rachni in ME1.  In ME2, we have the derelict Reaper, Overlord, and Subject Zero.  The only thing that Cerberus is shown to succed on screen was the Lazarus Project.  You can complain all you want but the proof is in the game.  






[quote]
In addition, they clearly wanted you to hate Cerberus. One of the Devs (can't remember) said you were supposed to be more like the strange bedfellows trope with Cerberus and that of course disregarded whether you were Paragon or Renegade even if logic would dictate that a Renegade would support a renegade black ops program. To pretty much force the issue on you, Cerberus had all the brute force tasteless things you mentioned so they can have kind of a "even Renegades should not be for this" type sentiment.
[/quote]Bioware does the 'strange bedfellows' with all sorts of factions. Pretty much every character you recruit in ME1, for example, starts with the 'this person is ominous/dangerous/untrustworthy' foreshadowing, before turning into woobies by the end of their loyalty mission. Even fan favorites, like Wrex and Garrus, aren't exactly introduced in the most positive of manners: Wrex threatens murder, and Garrus endangers a hostage.


The tasteless depiction of Cerberus is a weakness of Bioware against their own stated attempt, not a point. Bioware is just naturally clumsy at amorality. (See: Morinth.)
[/quote] 

You are missing my point.  As you said, all those characters do end up being kind of woobies and sympathetic because they wanted you to like them but still be all badass and hardcore.  Bioware never wanted you to like Cerberus.  You were supposed to be more like enemies operating under a ceasefire because you had a common enemy instead becoming friends at the end.  Why do you think Shepard goes back to the Alliance instead of staying with literally the only organization that even believes the Reapers are a threat when you know at best you are going to be scapegoated and grounded?


[quote]
And you are right. If David had been the perpetrator doing this for his brother, it would have been so much more interesting but then it would be a black and white Cerberus is bad issue. Keep in mind that even if you side with Cerberus because you feel it was justified, your Shepard still punches Dr. Archer regardless of how you feel just because the team wants you to be outraged and appalled regardless.[/quote]How would it be black and white if a massacre is kicked off by a misunderstanding, as opposed to a baseless crucification?

That doesn't make much sense.
[/quote] 

Because you are hostile to Dr. Archer regardless of whether you take the paragon or renegade option because Bioware wanted you to feel he took things too far.  If David wanted it at first to help his brother before snapping because he couldn't handle it, Bioware would have actually had to write it well instead of "Cerberus is evil, herp derp!".  Overlord was not really a morality issue decision because they already made the decision for you.


[quote]
As far as Teltin again. I already agreed that made no sense but it also was not Cerberus. It was a bunch of sadists who long since forgot their purpose and were doing things for the evulz. Principally what happened on Teltin makes no sense. Even if you did make a superweapon biotic girl, she would resent you for you know repeatedly raping and torturing her. She would have never been under their control. Common sense would dictate being loving and getting her to give you undying loyalty so she would do anything you wanted her to do because she loved you. If she ended up a superbiotic and was angry with you, common sense said she would kill you as soon as she got the chance which was exactly what happened. It was mind numbing stupidity at it's finest.[/quote]
Common sense would dictate decent courtesy. Uncommon sense would suggest manufacturing stockholm syndrome.

Cerberus doesn't need to be nice to be effective, and it doesn't need to be cruel to be evil. There are a lot of ways to hit the moral-ambiguity equilibrium without being moral or cruel.


Imagine if Cerberus raised aliens from birth as if they were Human? Humans in alien skins, to infiltrate, spy, and assassinate... and with a whole load of emotional baggage? 

[/quote]

Torturing someone and hoping for Stockholm syndrone is stupid.  There is no guaranteed way to create Stockholm syndrone so banking on that for the inception is stupid regardless of how you look at it.  And being nice is not necessarily nice.  If they were being nice to brainwash Jack into trusting them and wanting to kill people for them, that is cruelty and manipulation at its finest.  It is not like you are being moral to get good results.  You have a much better chance of fostering loyalty by false kindness than torturing someone and hoping for Stockholm syndrone.

And as far as your Salt reference, sure it would be a great idea for a designated terrorist organization but I am not quite sure it is relevant here.

Modifié par silentassassin264, 25 février 2012 - 02:41 .

[Dean_the_Young]

silentassassin264 wrote...

This is statistically proven by the husks, thorian creepers, and rachni in ME1.  In ME2, we have the derelict Reaper, Overlord, and Subject Zero.  The only thing that Cerberus is shown to succed on screen was the Lazarus Project.  You can complain all you want but the proof is in the game. 

Unless you intend to argue that the projects we've seen are the only Cerberus projects... no, you haven't actually addressed the point.

You are missing my point.  As you said, all those characters do end up being kind of woobies and sympathetic because they wanted you to like them but still be all badass and hardcore.  Bioware never wanted you to like Cerberus.  You were supposed to be more like enemies operating under a ceasefire because you had a common enemy instead becoming friends at the end.  Why do you think Shepard goes back to the Alliance instead of staying with literally the only organization that even believes the Reapers are a threat when you know at best you are going to be scapegoated and grounded?

The same reason Shepard dies, isn't believed by the Council about the Reapers, or has to recruit certain teammates rather than getting less-proficient, but saner, replacements: plot.

Of course, nothing in ME2 claimed or implied that our working with Cerberus was over, nor was hostility ever forced.

Because you are hostile to Dr. Archer regardless of whether you take the paragon or renegade option because Bioware wanted you to feel he took things too far.  If David wanted it at first to help his brother before snapping because he couldn't handle it, Bioware would have actually had to write it well instead of "Cerberus is evil, herp derp!".  Overlord was not really a morality issue decision because they already made the decision for you.

You didn't answer the question I asked, only repeated what you said before. Perhaps you'd like to try again?

Torturing someone and hoping for Stockholm syndrone is stupid.  There is no guaranteed way to create Stockholm syndrone so banking on that for the inception is stupid regardless of how you look at it.

If you do it blindly, yes. If you're working with a child, which Jack was?

Leagues of research and history on the subject. Children can absolutely be conditioned.

And as far as your Salt reference, sure it would be a great idea for a designated terrorist organization but I am not quite sure it is relevant here.

No idea what your Salt is refering to, so who knows.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 février 2012 - 02:55 .

[silentassassin264]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]silentassassin264 wrote...

This is statistically proven by the husks, thorian creepers, and rachni in ME1.  In ME2, we have the derelict Reaper, Overlord, and Subject Zero.  The only thing that Cerberus is shown to succed on screen was the Lazarus Project.  You can complain all you want but the proof is in the game.  [/quote]Unless you intend to argue that the projects we've seen are the only Cerberus projects... no, you haven't actually addressed teh point.
[/quote] 
Yes I have.  Obviously Cerberus doesn't destroy everything they touch or they would have no funds but the Devs clearly wanted to paint the picture of Cerberus being inept and irresponsible by having everything they touch onscreen fail.    You are deluding yourself if think otherwise.






[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote... 
[quote]You are missing my point.  As you said, all those characters do end up being kind of woobies and sympathetic because they wanted you to like them but still be all badass and hardcore.  Bioware never wanted you to like Cerberus.  You were supposed to be more like enemies operating under a ceasefire because you had a common enemy instead becoming friends at the end.  Why do you think Shepard goes back to the Alliance instead of staying with literally the only organization that even believes the Reapers are a threat when you know at best you are going to be scapegoated and grounded?[/quote]The same reason Shepard dies, isn't believed by the Council about the Reapers, or has to recruit certain teammates rather than getting less-proficient, but saner, replacements: plot.

Of course, nothing in ME2 claimed or implied that our working with Cerberus was over, nor was hostility ever forced.
[/quote] 
Patrick Weekes straight up said it on twitter.  I am not going search through it but take my word on it.  Cerberus was never intended to be your friend.  
[/quote] 

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote... 
[quote]
Because you are hostile to Dr. Archer regardless of whether you take the paragon or renegade option because Bioware wanted you to feel he took things too far.  If David wanted it at first to help his brother before snapping because he couldn't handle it, Bioware would have actually had to write it well instead of "Cerberus is evil, herp derp!".  Overlord was not really a morality issue decision because they already made the decision for you.[/quote]You didn't answer the question I asked, only repeated what you said before. Perhaps you'd like to try again?
[/quote]  
Yes I did. 

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...  
[quote]
Torturing someone and hoping for Stockholm syndrone is stupid.  There is no guaranteed way to create Stockholm syndrone so banking on that for the inception is stupid regardless of how you look at it.[/quote]If you do it blindly, yes. If you're working with a child, which Jack was?

Leagues of research and history on the subject. Children can absolutely be conditioned.
[/quote]  
And there is no Evil Douchebag's Handibook that states if you rape someone 15-20 times per month for 6 years they will do whatever you say.  

Jack was a child that they nabbed from birth.  They could have easily conditioned her the normal way of doing what North Korea does and lie.  She was a child and wouldn't have known any better if they told her that she needed to train to protect herself from commie aliens but overall made her love her false family so when push came to shove, she would stand up from them with undying loyalty.

Torturing someone is not conditioning them to serve you loyally.  Do you think all those child soldiers they have in Africa stay loyal to the warlords that drug them up and give them guns?  If you thought so, you are incredibly wrong.  More often than not they go renegade and bite the hand that fed them drugs.  




[quote]
And as far as your Salt reference, sure it would be a great idea for a designated terrorist organization but I am not quite sure it is relevant here.

[/quote]No idea what your Salt is refering to, so who knows.
[/quote]
Salt was the movie with Angelina Jolie playing a Russian spy who was trained from birth to pretend to be an American and have unswerving loyalty to the Soviet Union so when a sleeper cell plan went off she would be the perfect infiltrator.

Your plan with Cerberus planning something like that was similar.  It also has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

[elearon1]

I never saw the sense in playing one direction against common sense anyway. It was a fool mistake to give the Collector base to TIM whatever my personality, so I flipped him off and blew it up - not because I was a pure-as-the-driven-snow good guy, but because I didn't want him to have it.

I didn't kill the Rachni Queen in the first game, not because I'm full of love and peace and joy, but because everyone was telling me to kill it and I thought, "screw you, you made this mess, kill it yourselves."

Not every "Paragon" choice is made because you're thinking like a nice guy, sometimes they're made for selfish or pragmatic reasons. On the other hand, I made a lot of ****** decisions that might very well come and bite me in the ass - and that's fine too, I stand by my decisions - they were hard decisions and someone had to step up and make them.

I want my decisions to have consequences - both good and bad. Do I hope the Geth turn around and bite the people who let them live rather than make the sensible choice of killing them to remove an emeny from their back - hell yeah. But neither will I whine if it turns out killing them was the wrong decision ... it was my decision to make and that is what makes the experience of ME so much fun to play.

What I will be disappointed by is if it turns out those decisions don't impact the game at all. That would infuriate me.

[Dean_the_Young]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Yes I have.  Obviously Cerberus doesn't destroy everything they touch or they would have no funds but the Devs clearly wanted to paint the picture of Cerberus being inept and irresponsible by having everything they touch onscreen fail.    You are deluding yourself if think otherwise.

Since the point was statistics, and the weakness of the ones available...

No, you really haven't.

Patrick Weekes straight up said it on twitter.  I am not going search through it but take my word on it.  Cerberus was never intended to be your friend.  

Who said they were? You're mixing points to respond to points you're mixing up.

Yes I did.

No, you didn't explain how a case in which no malevolence behind the Overlord incident would somehow be MORE black and white.

And there is no Evil Douchebag's Handibook that states if you rape someone 15-20 times per month for 6 years they will do whatever you say.  

Jack was a child that they nabbed from birth.  They could have easily conditioned her the normal way of doing what North Korea does and lie.  She was a child and wouldn't have known any better if they told her that she needed to train to protect herself from commie aliens but overall made her love her false family so when push came to shove, she would stand up from them with undying loyalty.

Torturing someone is not conditioning them to serve you loyally.  Do you think all those child soldiers they have in Africa stay loyal to the warlords that drug them up and give them guns?  If you thought so, you are incredibly wrong.  More often than not they go renegade and bite the hand that fed them drugs. 

You're missing the point by a mile over something that I'm not arguing.

This is known as a strawman, and is a logical fallacy.

Your plan with Cerberus planning something like that was similar.  It also has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Finally catching on.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 février 2012 - 03:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

elearon1 wrote...

I never saw the sense in playing one direction against common sense anyway. It was a fool mistake to give the Collector base to TIM whatever my personality, so I flipped him off and blew it up - not because I was a pure-as-the-driven-snow good guy, but because I didn't want him to have it.

I didn't kill the Rachni Queen in the first game, not because I'm full of love and peace and joy, but because everyone was telling me to kill it and I thought, "screw you, you made this mess, kill it yourselves."

Not every "Paragon" choice is made because you're thinking like a nice guy, sometimes they're made for selfish or pragmatic reasons. On the other hand, I made a lot of ****** decisions that might very well come and bite me in the ass - and that's fine too, I stand by my decisions - they were hard decisions and someone had to step up and make them.

I want my decisions to have consequences - both good and bad. Do I hope the Geth turn around and bite the people who let them live rather than make the sensible choice of killing them to remove an emeny from their back - hell yeah. But neither will I whine if it turns out killing them was the wrong decision ... it was my decision to make and that is what makes the experience of ME so much fun to play.

What I will be disappointed by is if it turns out those decisions don't impact the game at all. That would infuriate me.

Personally, one of my pure Paragons is a total monster. Wants to survive the Reapers, but everything else is as bad as possible. Sparing the Rachni and all those criminals is really just hoping for them to raise cain later.

[Turbosonic]

I'm almost fully renegade with some paragon choices here and there. I want to keep one of them up so I can do some of the choices that require high renegade/paragon. I know I'm going to get screwed over for being a jerk but I like making badass characters in games like this.

[Destroy Raiden_]

S Atomeha wrote...

byne wrote...

Drake-Shepard wrote...

letting that asari commando sister live in samara's recruitment mission turned out to be a mistake, and killing her in cold blood is the right call
I have some hope
unless she comes back and helps you in me3. That will just take the ,,,

I dont see how killing her was the right call. Last I checked eye for an eye wasnt the way crimes were handled in modern societies.

Killing her is the safest route, yes.  However she still 'surrenered' and for that well she should have been arrested, or let go if disarmed at the extreme(which is what ended up happening). You can't execute criminals when they surrender, it is up to the courts to decide their fates.

You also killed the girl with no proof of guilt you decided she was guilty and deserved exacution before you found any evidence to support your idea. She claimed to only be shooting above your heads and pulled the gun out sure suspicious but she didn't use it (and she could've) she paused too which could've supported her being scared of you. Kensen had motive and intent to use that gernade this girl didn't have those to use her gun.

You only get proof it was the right call after you kill her which was only a lucky break otherwise it would've been cold blooded murder. But what the game comes down to is some ren decisions are better and some paras are better using all para or all ren is not the best way to go but for some players its the only way they'd ever go.

[Troller79]

renegade ha your doin it wrong

[thepiebaker]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

S Atomeha wrote...

byne wrote...

Drake-Shepard wrote...

letting that asari commando sister live in samara's recruitment mission turned out to be a mistake, and killing her in cold blood is the right call
I have some hope
unless she comes back and helps you in me3. That will just take the ,,,

I dont see how killing her was the right call. Last I checked eye for an eye wasnt the way crimes were handled in modern societies.

Killing her is the safest route, yes.  However she still 'surrenered' and for that well she should have been arrested, or let go if disarmed at the extreme(which is what ended up happening). You can't execute criminals when they surrender, it is up to the courts to decide their fates.

You also killed the girl with no proof of guilt you decided she was guilty and deserved exacution before you found any evidence to support your idea. She claimed to only be shooting above your heads and pulled the gun out sure suspicious but she didn't use it (and she could've) she paused too which could've supported her being scared of you. Kensen had motive and intent to use that gernade this girl didn't have those to use her gun.

You only get proof it was the right call after you kill her which was only a lucky break otherwise it would've been cold blooded murder. But what the game comes down to is some ren decisions are better and some paras are better using all para or all ren is not the best way to go but for some players its the only way they'd ever go.

if it wasnt set up that you had to be almost pure to the extreams to make the choices of keeping both loyalties or whatever more people will play paragade/renegon:wizard:

[Troller79]

renegade lmfao your still doin it wrong

[piemanz]

I love my renegade char, but i wouldn't expect my intergalactic A'hole Shep to get the same results as my paragon.

You never know it may turn out better to be a renegade, although i doubt it

Modifié par piemanz, 25 février 2012 - 03:48 .