71 réponses à ce sujet

[JBPBRC]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You thought those choices would matter?



http://media.tumblr....BVB1r45793.jpg

Oh Javik. You always make me laugh.

Modifié par JBPBRC, 19 mai 2012 - 04:57 .

[garrusfan1]

is the ems any different if you saved her or not and I will say that those that had grunt at least for me that was a very good scene gets me right in the pumper everytime I see it

[JBPBRC]

garrusfan1 wrote...

is the ems any different if you saved her or not and I will say that those that had grunt at least for me that was a very good scene gets me right in the pumper everytime I see it

If you saved her in ME1 and then again in ME3 you get more points than if you save her in ME1 but then kill her off in ME3. If you killed her in ME1 but then save her in ME3 you lose points since the Rachni go wild later on and kill off a bunch of Alliance Engineers, in addition to the points you lose from losing Aralakh Company.

[Bad King]

Renegade options from previous games almost always result in a net lower war assets score in ME3. Preserving the CB is an exception giving you a whopping 10 extra war asset points (Cerberus somehow recover an astonishingly intact reaper from the massive explosion that Shepard triggered if he chose to destroy the CB).

One thing I was mildly irritated about with the rachni mission in ME3 was that the renegade option was always made to be the stupid option on both paths:

1). Save the queen in ME1:

Paragon = free her from the reaper tech, get massive war assets.
Renegade = let her die, rescue Arlakh company, get less assets.

Now these choices wouldn't have bothered me so much if they had stayed consistent in the 'killing the queen in ME1 path', but:

2). Kill the queen in ME1:

Paragon = let the reaper made monstrosity die, save Arlakh company (What? Why is it now paragon to save Arlakh company?)
Renegade = retard option - save the monstrosity, Arlakh company dies, she betrays you.

So BioWare went to great lengths to make sure that the renegade option would always give you less war assets, even going as far as breaking character consistency to do so.

Modifié par Bad King, 19 mai 2012 - 05:08 .

[NUM13ER]

I think I expected clear pros and cons from the scenario as well as short and long term consequences. Basically meaning a significant impact on the game that doesn't "punish" the player.

EDIT: I'm refering to the choice of sparing or killing them in ME1 and what could have been the outcome.

Saved the Rachni Queen:

Pro: She is able to aid you in the final battle.
Con: Some of her young are used to create Ravagers making gameplay tougher.

Killed The Queen:

Pro: You don't have to deal with Ravagers at all (except Grunts mission due to them being clones).
Con: No aid from her during the final battle.

Clear short-term and long-term benefits as well as a real impact on gameplay as a whole. And even that simple idea is more substantial than what we got. Instead it was a few insignificant numbers on the EMS chart.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 19 mai 2012 - 05:43 .

[garrusfan1]

JBPBRC wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

is the ems any different if you saved her or not and I will say that those that had grunt at least for me that was a very good scene gets me right in the pumper everytime I see it

If you saved her in ME1 and then again in ME3 you get more points than if you save her in ME1 but then kill her off in ME3. If you killed her in ME1 but then save her in ME3 you lose points since the Rachni go wild later on and kill off a bunch of Alliance Engineers, in addition to the points you lose from losing Aralakh Company.

well at least it did something I guess and thanks for the info

[poundoffleshaa]

Bioware has stated it wasn't willing (too lazy ?) to put in content that not everyone could access, so there were no missions that you couldn't do due to past choices (like Alpha Protocol). This kind of weakened Biowares ability to make choices matter IMO.

Modifié par poundoffleshaa, 19 mai 2012 - 05:18 .

[NUM13ER]

poundoffleshaa wrote...
Bioware has stated it wasn't willing (too lazy ?) to put in content that not everyone could access, so there were no missions that you couldn't do due to past choices (like Alpha Protocol). This kind of weakened Biowares ability to make choices matter IMO.

It's strange that Grunt's mission could have simply been reaper cloned rachni. Meaning regardless of saving or killing their queen that mission was available for everyone.

Then later on you could have the real Rachni Queen (if you spared her) show up to help in the final battle in some way. I just think the deadline was the real reason it wasn't a more substanstial choice.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 19 mai 2012 - 05:26 .

[Deltakarma]

NUM13ER wrote...

I think I expected clear pros and cons from the scenario as well as short and long term consequences. Basically meaning a significant impact on the game that doesn't "punish" the player.

Saved the Rachni Queen:

Pro: She is able to aid you in the final battle.
Con: Some of her young are used to create Ravagers making gameplay tougher.

Killed The Queen:

Pro: You don't have to deal with Ravagers at all (except Grunts mission due to them being clones).
Con: No aid from her during the final battle.

Clear short-term and long-term benefits as well as a real impact on gameplay as a whole. And even that simple idea is more substantial than what we got.

What? Is this actually true? I doubt it. Reapers probably come by and pick SOME ravagers up during the game.

And this equation doesnt really make sense to me.

Kill the Queen = No Ravagers?
Save the Queen = Get Ravagers?

Does that make sense to anyone? I dont think that would matter at all. No matter what, she still makes ravagers before you kill/save her.

But I do wander one thing, if you do save her, where THE HELL DID SHE RUN OFF TO?
Anyone get that at all? Unless there was a magical ship underground for them <_<

[JBPBRC]

Honestly, Grunt's mission would've worked even better if it was the START of the Rachni Queen arc. Just don't have the Queen show up in that initial mission and make it an entire subplot similar to Rannoch or Tuchanka.

Then in the final mission have you choose between the battle-hardened Aralakh company (which would have equal assets to the Rachni due to being made of awesome) or the Queen. Depending on your results this would affect your assets that you received from Tuchanka.

Or something. I dunno. I just think having their own set of missions would've been way more fitting.

[Master Xanthan]

Would have been better if Rachni weren't in ME3 at all if you chose to kill the queen in ME1.

[NUM13ER]

Deltakarma wrote...
What? Is this actually true? I doubt it. Reapers probably come by and pick SOME ravagers up during the game.

And this equation doesnt really make sense to me.

Kill the Queen = No Ravagers?
Save the Queen = Get Ravagers?

Does that make sense to anyone? I dont think that would matter at all. No matter what, she still makes ravagers before you kill/save her.

But I do wander one thing, if you do save her, where THE HELL DID SHE RUN OFF TO?
Anyone get that at all? Unless there was a magical ship underground for them <_<

Ah I understand the confusion. I meant after saving or killing her in ME1 this is what I thought could have happened. Not what did. The idea being no Ravagers outside of Grunts mission because you killed the last one and forced the reapers to build from stratch with clones. With her alive they were able to convert ready made young into Ravagers to transport off world. Now obviously the option to kill or spare her again would still appear in ME3.

How she's able to escape in ME3 afterwards...I'm not able to answer that lol.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 19 mai 2012 - 05:39 .

[xxSanitysuxx]

I dunno... while the rachni queen choice wasnt handled quite as well as i had hoped, it wasnt quite a disaster... if you save her both times, she helps you build the crucible, if you didnt save the original queen, the reaper replacement doesnt trust you even if you do save her this time... and sabotages the crucible, well, kindof... in the end it just lowers your EMS by a few hundred points... completely and utterly inconsequential in the bigger picture, but atleast there was a consequence...

It just wasnt as good as the stuff on tuchanka with the genophage or the quarian/geth conflict which honestly has so many variables its quite impressive how they pulled it off. Shame... coz the rachni decision was the one being built up by Bioware themselves as having a huge impact

[Oldbones2]

Adamantium93 wrote...

should've come back to bite you. After stumbling upon the planet with Grunt and realizing that she had been recaptured by the Reapers, I thought that was where they were going. And you know what? I liked it.

For once playing the goody-goody two-shoes character had consequences. In a typical game with moral choices, being a wholly nice guy will result in very few negative outcomes. I thought they had broken this old formula and were serving me something substancial. By being nice, I actually made my enemies stronger? Cool!

But sadly no. My decision had virtually no bearing on the outcome. No matter what you chose, the Rachni Queen returns. Aparrently if you saved her you get slightly more EMS points but really, who cares about that?

Same thing with the collector base, but that's a rant for a different thread.

I know, by not wanted to punish players, they 1 managed to not really reward players,
and 2 still managed to punish renegades a bit.

Seriously BW, we know you love paragon, but there are times when renegade just makes more sense.

[JBPBRC]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Seriously BW, we know you love paragon, but there are times when renegade just makes more sense.

Renegade is also just straight up trolling.

Like Kai Leng and his stupid sword. Or that Eclipse merc you push out the window. Or the Blue Suns guy working on the gunship that you electrocute.

...But yeah. Overall renegades just suffered.

[garrusfan1]

someone said they didn`t want anyone left out and not be able to get to content well thought are choices in past games like in me2 when it says be careful some choices in me2 could have dire ramifications in me3 hmm I mean they put mp in for the new players and wasted resources on that could`ve made single player better

[garrusfan1]

someone said they didn`t want anyone left out and not be able to get to content well thought are choices in past games like in me2 when it says be careful some choices in me2 could have dire ramifications in me3 hmm I mean they put mp in for the new players and wasted resources on that could`ve made single player better

[Oldbones2]

garrusfan1 wrote...

someone said they didn`t want anyone left out and not be able to get to content well thought are choices in past games like in me2 when it says be careful some choices in me2 could have dire ramifications in me3 hmm I mean they put mp in for the new players and wasted resources on that could`ve made single player better

Could you repeat that for me?

[Unholyknight800]

I don't know why but I get renegade points for saving the Noveria queen.

[Artemillion]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You thought those choices would matter?

[PreciousIsland]

IanPolaris wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

I suspect that the Rachni Queen choice is going to matter more in the EC.

It would be sorta hard for it to matter less than it does now.

-Polaris

Haha, so true.

[PreciousIsland]

Master Xanthan wrote...

Would have been better if Rachni weren't in ME3 at all if you chose to kill the queen in ME1.

Makes sense.  Consequences for the player aren't too awful.  I concur.

[JBPBRC]

PreciousIsland wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...

Would have been better if Rachni weren't in ME3 at all if you chose to kill the queen in ME1.

Makes sense.  Consequences for the player aren't too awful.  I concur.

Plus it would've been a case where Renegade actually had a REAL impact that benefited the player. Instead renegades get to save Kelly Chambers while paragons are leading this glorious crusade into borderline messiah territory...<_<

[Pantalaimon]

What really p**sed me off? You got MORE RENEGADE than Paragon! I really wish i could have b!tch slapped that Queen! God, This is my rage moment of ME3.
ME1: Kirrahe dies no matter what (Glitched)
ME2: Samara not romance-able.
ME3: Rachni Queen.

[mupp3tz]

How the decision with the Rachni queen was treated, along with a few others (i.e. Udina v. Anderson) was extremely disappointing. The way that they were neglected or shoehorned into a set result was frustrating as I actually took the time to weigh pros and cons before I took a plunge that I thought would shift the end game.  Or aleast even matter on some level.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 22 mai 2012 - 05:54 .