968 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

People have come to rely far too much on Paragon/Renegade. Maker forbid we should actually try to have them think on the pros and cons of a choice instead of color coding them for convenience.
That's how we get controversies like the endings.

The endings occupy a unique spot. Your own scheme has nothing in it to satisfy me in any case, so I have no reason to agree with it.

[Steelcan]

masster blaster wrote...

Play as a Paragon he lives. Play as a renegade in Omega. He dies.

Is it an interrupt or something?

[Bill Casey]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

No, you have the option to force him to surrender. Completely different.

He is on the fast track to asylum, though...
He's providing useful intel on the Illusive Man...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 novembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[enayasoul]

What kind of information does Petrovsky really have? Miranda already gave Shepard the intel to find the Illusive man. It can end one of two ways.

[MisterJB]

Bill Casey wrote...

The adjutants have been modified. It is believed Cerberus can control when and where they transform people...

Only a few. And those had to come from somewhere.
I'd be more willing to accept it if we had been told all adjutants ahd been former gang members of groups like the Blue Suns or the Blood Pack.

And in the comic, Petrovsky was willing to blow up Omega station if Aria didn't surrender...
Aria's hardly a threat that warrants that level of response...

But only after evacuating as many people as possible.

Petrovsky surrenders because he has lost. He knows if he provides valuable intel, he can secure amnesty for himself...

In the comic, Aria points a gun at his head and order to take her back to Omega. Oleg only agrees once she threatened the lives of his soldiers.
In this DLC, he is more than willing to betray Cerberus to save his life. If we had convinced him TIM was harming humanity, it would be acceptable.

[Bill Casey]

enayasoul wrote...

What kind of information does Petrovsky
really have? Miranda already gave Shepard the intel to find the
Illusive man. It can end one of two ways.

He helps the Alliance locate a Cerberus lab...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 novembre 2012 - 01:14 .

[Xilizhra]

Bill Casey wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

No, you have the option to force him to surrender. Completely different.

He is on the fast track to asylum, though...
He's providing useful intel on the Illusive Man...

Which kind of makes me want to break Paragon. Especially since, given that I'd play Omega immediately before the attack on Cronos Station, he wouldn't have any useful intel anyway.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

No, you have the option to force him to surrender. Completely different.

He is on the fast track to asylum, though...
He's providing useful intel on the Illusive Man...

Which kind of makes me want to break Paragon. Especially since, given that I'd play Omega immediately before the attack on Cronos Station, he wouldn't have any useful intel anyway.

It would be useful in ending Cerberus completely.  It's not like klling TIM would dissolve Cerberus.

[MisterJB]

Were I not aware of my insignificance, I would think Bioware was deliberately trolling us by forcing Shepard to refuse Oleg's offer of friendship.

[Xilizhra]

It would be useful in ending Cerberus completely. It's not like klling TIM would dissolve Cerberus.

No, but by clearing out Cronos Station, I think we've taken out most of the Cerberus members who still have their own minds. Any remaining soldiers will die from mental degeneration eventually.

[Steelcan]

MisterJB wrote...

Were I not aware of my insignificance, I would think Bioware was deliberately trolling us by forcing Shepard to refuse Oleg's offer of friendship.

You can write it off as Shepard just saying what everyone around him expects to say. 

Besides we are supposed to loathe everything attached to Cerberus

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

It would be useful in ending Cerberus completely. It's not like klling TIM would dissolve Cerberus.

No, but by clearing out Cronos Station, I think we've taken out most of the Cerberus members who still have their own minds. Any remaining soldiers will die from mental degeneration eventually.

Any heads of a research station would have to be high functioning.

[dreman9999]

Xilizhra wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

No, you have the option to force him to surrender. Completely different.

He is on the fast track to asylum, though...
He's providing useful intel on the Illusive Man...

Which kind of makes me want to break Paragon. Especially since, given that I'd play Omega immediately before the attack on Cronos Station, he wouldn't have any useful intel anyway.

This dlc isdone like overlord. It's consept is in the middle of the war way before cronos station.

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

No, you have the option to force him to surrender. Completely different.

Not realy. Ether way he's helping us with cerberus and get cleared of his crimes.

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

Were I not aware of my insignificance, I would think Bioware was deliberately trolling us by forcing Shepard to refuse Oleg's offer of friendship.

Please. Shepard hardly know him and he is working with the enemy.  Thisis going back to being upset because Shepard alway is upset over what David Archer did in overlord reguardless of being renagade or paragon.

[MisterJB]

dreman9999 wrote...
Not realy. Ether way he's helping us with cerberus and get cleared of his crimes.

Yes, really. There is a huge difference.
In "Invasion" Oleg refused to help Aria even when he had a gun pointed to his head. For him to just betray Cerberus to save his life is OOC and pathetic.
Had he been convinced TIM no longer stood for humanity's best interests, then providing Shepard with information is a way to serve humanity and not just save his skin.

[enayasoul]

But he let Aria escape. You have to ask why he did that. He knew when he was beaten. He surrendered. That's not at all pathetic. I actually kind of like him. He wasn't all that evil either. He let people surrender and kept his word.

[RiouHotaru]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

ME1 had dialog options where Shepard said the same line no matter -which- choice was picked.

ME2 had "neutral" options which became pointless because they didn't do anything to advance Shepard's personality.

Honestly, ME3 Shepard to me had the most personality.

Let's review!

Mass Effect,

Turian Councilor: Do you take pleasure from committing genocide, Shepard?
Commander Shepard: Depends on the species, Turian.

Mass Effect 2

The Illusive Man: Shepard, you're making a habit of costing me more than time and money.
Commander Shepard: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you- I'm getting a lot of bull**** on this line.

Mass Effect 3

*salutes Hackett and apologizes to Asari Council*

See, the problem is in the first two games those responses were optional. ME3 railroads you into being a good little alliance puppet and crying over some random kid.

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Not realy. Ether way he's helping us with cerberus and get cleared of his crimes.

Yes, really. There is a huge difference.
In "Invasion" Oleg refused to help Aria even when he had a gun pointed to his head. For him to just betray Cerberus to save his life is OOC and pathetic.
Had he been convinced TIM no longer stood for humanity's best interests, then providing Shepard with information is a way to serve humanity and not just save his skin.

Great...It's gone full circle. The op start this thread because he fealt we were going to before to kill him. Now you changing it to the fact he is not a cerberus loyalist. I think he got the message thingswere up when all his ground trooper were indoctrinated slaves.

[Steelcan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

But Shepard also could be responsible for numerous deaths, and even an extinction.  One kid shouldn't be a breaking point.

Even the back ground stories are more traumatic, yet they get hardly any mention.

[dreman9999]

Steelcan wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

But Shepard also could be responsible for numerous deaths, and even an extinction.  One kid shouldn't be a breaking point.

Even the back ground stories are more traumatic, yet they get hardly any mention.

It 's not just the kid. It's also the fate of his race and all the races. You think the person trying to put this war together is going to sleep  easy?

Modifié par dreman9999, 28 novembre 2012 - 02:23 .

[grey_wind]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

ME1 had dialog options where Shepard said the same line no matter -which- choice was picked.

ME2 had "neutral" options which became pointless because they didn't do anything to advance Shepard's personality.

Honestly, ME3 Shepard to me had the most personality.

Let's review!

Mass Effect,

Turian Councilor: Do you take pleasure from committing genocide, Shepard?
Commander Shepard: Depends on the species, Turian.

Mass Effect 2

The Illusive Man: Shepard, you're making a habit of costing me more than time and money.
Commander Shepard: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you- I'm getting a lot of bull**** on this line.

Mass Effect 3

*salutes Hackett and apologizes to Asari Council*

See, the problem is in the first two games those responses were optional. ME3 railroads you into being a good little alliance puppet and crying over some random kid.

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

I was roleplaying one of my Sheps as a sociopath. So yes, the kid bothering her does irk me.
Nearly all my Sheps were Cerberus loyalists. So yes, it does bother me when I'm saluting Hackett and kissing his arse 24x7, while the only conversations I can have with Timmy are "Lolz, yousa mad boomer!". It would have been nice to get an option at the very least where my Shepard wasn't acting like an Alliance doormat. You know, like how you can tell the Council in ME1 and Cerberus in ME2 to shut their traps?

[Steelcan]

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

But Shepard also could be responsible for numerous deaths, and even an extinction.  One kid shouldn't be a breaking point.

Even the back ground stories are more traumatic, yet they get hardly any mention.

It not just the kid. It's also the fate of his race and all the races. You think the person trying to put this war together is going to sleep  easy?

But why focus on the kid?  I think the VS, or dead squdmates would be a better focus.

[RiouHotaru]

Steelcan wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

But Shepard also could be responsible for numerous deaths, and even an extinction.  One kid shouldn't be a breaking point.

Even the back ground stories are more traumatic, yet they get hardly any mention.

There's a difference.  The people Shepard killed were also trying to kill you.  Also, honestly claiming your Shepard wouldn't so much as bat an eye at a child dying is hilarious.  Try asking any -real- soldier how they react to death.  Again, if Shepard doesn't feel a thing when a kid dies, there's issues invovled.

[d-boy15]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Well if a kid dying right in front of you doesn't bother you, you're a sociopath, and as for saluting Hackett, why not?  The Reapers are here, you don't have time to be chest-thumping and acting like you're tough stuff.

how about shepard family got slaughter?
civilian melt in to goo?
sacrifice his/her own soldiers?
shooting friend in the back?
betrayed you friend trust?
left civilian to dead?

it's not a problem shepard feel for kid but bioware made it look like kid is the only thing important to shepard
in this universe.
 

Modifié par d-boy15, 28 novembre 2012 - 02:25 .