1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
 Sabotaging the cure would fit - but no, they give the Paragon extra cookies by giving us an extra opportunity to win Salarian support. In other words, the designers go out of their way to favor Paragons.

But that doesn't get back the fleet you lost if you don't sabotage the cure. It's a separate asset. I'm also not sure how the salarian support you do get counts as a result of Paragon action; surely saving the Salarian councilor isn't something that a Renegade would pass up if he can do it.

Of course nobody would pass that up. But to balance the lost fleet, you get the krogan Mercenaries and Wrex is +5 stronger than Wreav. The net benefit of sabotaging the cure is 20 TMS = 10 EMS. So if you cure the genophage, you get the warm fuzzies and almost no downside. Is it any wonder that almost nobody sabotages the cure (last I heard 3%).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The examples I quoted are pragmatic. The big Renegade decisions often are - leaving the Council to die, killing the Rachni queen, keeping the base, sabotaging the cure, killing the geth heretics. However, they would only be validated if the opposite decision had a downside, for avoiding that downside is the point of making the Renegade decision. But that never happens. Sabotaging the cure would fit - but no, they give the Paragon extra cookies by giving us an extra opportunity to win Salarian support. In other words, the designers go out of their way to favor Paragons.

Actually, destroying the geth heretics contributes to geth-quarian peace. And according to Legion, destroying them was the correct decision.

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The examples I quoted are pragmatic. The big Renegade decisions often are - leaving the Council to die, killing the Rachni queen, keeping the base, sabotaging the cure, killing the geth heretics. However, they would only be validated if the opposite decision had a downside, for avoiding that downside is the point of making the Renegade decision. But that never happens. Sabotaging the cure would fit - but no, they give the Paragon extra cookies by giving us an extra opportunity to win Salarian support. In other words, the designers go out of their way to favor Paragons.

Actually, destroying the geth heretics contributes to geth-quarian peace. And according to Legion, destroying them was the correct decision.

Tell me, who among us doesn't fulfil the conditions so you can get peace without having destroyed the heretics? It's the same with keeping the Collector base: technically, it makes Control easier to achieve, but who really plays a game where that matters, unless you do it on purpose? It's lip service, nothing more.

Story-wise, I admit, sabotaging the cure is awesome. It feels like a Renegade decsion that counts, even though it actually doesn't count.

As for Legion, doesn't he say you made the right decision whatever you did? I don't recall.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 09:54 .

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh no. That's not the problem at all. The problem is that the story favors Paragons to an almost silly degree. Positive Paragon consequences do materialize, while negative consequences never do - while they easily could. Take the Rachni queen decision: take a risk and save her, she'll be an ally. The Paragon is validated. The opposite *never* happens, not in important decisions. Whenever a Paragon lets someone live, it will turn out right. Cure the genophage and you'll get a second chance for gaining salarian support. The net benefit of sabotaging the cure is a measly 10 points of EMS. It shouldn't always turn out right. Pragmatism wouldn't be pragmatic if it never had a point.

This is because Renegade is rarely pragmatic, very often simply expedient. This could be a design flaw, to be sure, but in-universe, Renegade Shepard fails to comprehend the difference between pragmatism and expedience, too often.

The examples I quoted are pragmatic. The big Renegade decisions often are - leaving the Council to die, killing the Rachni queen, keeping the base, sabotaging the cure, killing the geth heretics. However, they would only be validated if the opposite decision had a downside, for avoiding that downside is the point of making the Renegade decision. But that never happens. Sabotaging the cure would fit - but no, they give the Paragon extra cookies by giving us an extra opportunity to win Salarian support. In other words, the designers go out of their way to favor Paragons.

Leaving the Council to die is based on a poor assessment, killing the rachni queen is based on a poor guess, keeping the base actually was the right decision in terms of EMS, sabotaging the cure is actually far riskier because you don't know whether the salarians can really get the turians on your side (especially if the turians see you as someone prone to breaking pledges), and killing the geth heretics seems to be a more or less even break.

[AlanC9]

Oh, I see. I wasn't charging Wrex's superior points to the cure decision, since those are already assigned. I guess not too many people cure the genophage with Wreav, right?

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Tell me, who among us doesn't fulfil the conditions so you can get peace without having destroyed the heretics? It's the same with keeping the Collector base: technically, it makes Control easier to achieve, but who really plays a game where that matters, unless you do it on purpose? It's lip service, nothing more.

Story-wise, I admit, sabotaging the cure is awesome. It feels like a Renegade decsion that counts, even though it actually doesn't count.

As for Legion, doesn't he say you made the right decision whatever you did? I don't recall.

Yeah, I achieved peace even after rewriting them...

Legion explicitly says that Shepard made the right call when he destroyed the heretics. For rewriting, Legion says that the heretics' perspective made it easier for the Consensus to side with the Reapers, the very thing that you were supposed to fear would happen.

[jtav]

No, he says rewrite was wrong. It also make the dreadnought slightly harder. And anecdotes aren't data but I couldn't get peace first time through because of rewrites.

I'd also note that sabotaging the cure is the only way to spare Mordin and the cure turning out well requires sparing Wrex.

[KevTheGamer]

Control was my first choice. I destroyed the geth but didn't want to destroy the mass relays or edi (this was before the EC) I have done several play throughs where I have done all endings before the EC but only have done rejection since the EC which I think is another great option and fits that Shepards personality because she is stubborn

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
No, he says rewrite was wrong. It also make the dreadnought slightly harder. And anecdotes aren't data but I couldn't get peace first time through because of rewrites.

All right.

I'd also note that sabotaging the cure is the only way to spare Mordin and the cure turning out well requires sparing Wrex.

As I said, I have no complaints story-wise. My problem is this:

(1) Paragon: Rachni queen: save her in ME1, save her in ME3, get 100 TMS. Nice. As it should be.
(2) Renegade: Kill Wrex in ME1, sabotage the cure in ME3, gain two salarian fleets worth 200 TMS. As it should be.

In (1) if you Renegade the choices you won't gain the queen as an ally, costing you the 100 TMS. As it should be. However, if you do not kill Wrex and cure the genophage, you don't lose the 200 TMS, because you get one 100 TMS fleet back from saving the Councilor, Wrex is 5 points stronger than Wreav and you get the Krogan Mercenaries for 75. The loss from the Paragon decision is almost balanced out by extra assets the designers gifted to the Paragons. I.e. Paragons are given extra cookies to mitigate the downside of their decision.

Granted, this is just game design, but it's still annoying, and it supports my impression that the ME trilogy is built on a feel-good morality. Until the ending, of course.   

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In (1) if you Renegade the choices you won't gain the queen as an ally, costing you the 100 TMS. As it should be. However, if you do not kill Wrex and cure the genophage, you don't lose the 200 TMS, because you get one 100 TMS fleet back from saving the Councilor, Wrex is 5 points stronger than Wreav and you get the Krogan Mercenaries for 75. The loss from the Paragon decision is almost balanced out by extra assets the designers gifted to the Paragons. I.e. Paragons are given extra cookies to mitigate the downside of their decision.

Granted, this is just game design, but it's still annoying, and it supports my impression that the ME trilogy is built on a feel-good morality. Until the ending, of course.   

It's actually been shown that the most War Assets you get from Tuchanka is if you 1) Kill Wrex in ME1 2) save Maelon's data so Eve survives and 3) sabotage the cure, shooting Mordin in the back

You gain Wreav's forces, the salarian fleet, and Eve's followers, which add up to more than a strictly paragon "cure the genophage"  payoff

[AlanC9]

jtav wrote...

No, he says rewrite was wrong. It also make the dreadnought slightly harder. And anecdotes aren't data but I couldn't get peace first time through because of rewrites.

Yeah, there's a point score needed at Rannoch and destroying the heretics helps -- the quarians won't back down if the geth are too big a threat, apparently.

[Ieldra]

@iakus:
I know that. The thing is, the difference to the best-case "genophage cure" scenario is so minimal that I feel I sabotaged the cure for nothing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@iakus:
I know that. The thing is, the difference to the best-case "genophage cure" scenario is so minimal that I feel I sabotaged the cure for nothing.

You weren't doing it to get more war assets, were you? I thought the point was to keep the galaxy safer in the future.

[MegaSovereign]

Yea, who would screw over the Krogan for 200 extra war assets? :S

Just promote 3 MP characters and you'll make up for that....Not that war assets actually matter beyond the 3100 EMS threshold.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@iakus:
I know that. The thing is, the difference to the best-case "genophage cure" scenario is so minimal that I feel I sabotaged the cure for nothing.

You weren't doing it to get more war assets, were you? I thought the point was to keep the galaxy safer in the future.

No. As I said, I have no complaints story-wise. Sabotaging the cure is easily the best-written Renegade decision in the trilogy. But I feel the war asset mechanics tried to tell me my choice was wrong.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Granted, this is just game design, but it's still annoying, and it supports my impression that the ME trilogy is built on a feel-good morality. Until the ending, of course.

Yeah, isn't that just fascinating? It took everyone by surprise.

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, there's a point score needed at
Rannoch and destroying the heretics helps -- the quarians won't back
down if the geth are too big a threat, apparently.

So the larger the geth fleet, the more determined the quarians are to keep fighting?

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Granted, this is just game design, but it's still annoying, and it supports my impression that the ME trilogy is built on a feel-good morality. Until the ending, of course.

Yeah, isn't that just fascinating? It took everyone by surprise.

I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

[AlexMBrennan]

So the larger the geth fleet, the more determined the quarians are to keep fighting?

They've already been established as literally too dumb to live. What did you expect from the guys that decided that "during a full scale Reaper invasion" was the best time to start another war?

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

Or perhaps one less such decision at the ending? 

Modifié par iakus, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:27 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

Or perhaps one less such decision at the ending? 

...No thanks. I always hated how most of the decisions in the ME universe had a huge all win/no lose Paragon bias.

You think these choices are morally horrific? If I had my way I would have made you CRY damnit.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

Or perhaps one less such decision at the ending? 

What if it was just between freeing and destroying the Reapers?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 décembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[cyrexwingblade]

Just for the record, I achieved peace in all of my play-throughs, and one of my Sheps chose rewrite, the other destroy, and both are paragon. So not sure how rewrite triggered a fail for ya.

[The Heretic of Time]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Wait, the Collector base... keeping is the Renegade decision, blowing it up is Paragon. But this is completely against your philosophy. In this scenario, the Paragon is destroying the base to prevent possible future harm, while the Renegade is keeping the base despite the risks that come with it. This is completely the opposite of all other Paragon and Renegade decisions. Maybe your philosophy isn't as water-tight as you thought it was?

My Paragon rationale for destroying the base is the other way around, i.e. TIM will almost certainly do something harmful with it, so I'll take the risk of losing a possible asset against the Reapers.

Euhm... how is that the other way around? That's exaclty what I just said. Paragon is destroying the base to prevent possible rampifications in the future. Renegade is taking the risk and keeping the base of possible assets in the future.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

Or perhaps one less such decision at the ending? 

What if it was just between freeing and destroying the Reapers?

If either option could be seen as "the right thing to do" without having an artificial tragedy tacked on saying "cry, dangit THIS IS SAD! STUFF!" I'd be willing to entertain the possibility.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I like it, but overall I don't think it was a good idea to shift the tone of the game that drastically in the last ten minutes. The feel-good morality raised expectations for the ending, and that they weren't fulfilled made many people angry. We should've had at least one other decision of the kind "whatever I do, it feels wrong" in ME3 before the ending.

Or perhaps one less such decision at the ending? 

...No thanks. I always hated how most of the decisions in the ME universe had a huge all win/no lose Paragon bias.

You think these choices are morally horrific? If I had my way I would have made you CRY damnit.

How about an option where "whatever I do feels right, but I can't do it all"?  Where each option is a "win", but a different win, based on how you played your Shepard.

How about a renegade option where Shepard controls the Reapers, lives, and becomes Emperor of the Galaxy?  Balanced by a Paragon option where Shepard can free the Reapers of the Catalyst, they disappear into the relay network, and Shepard gets to live with the uncertainty of what's been unleashed on the galaxy?