214 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebby]

Destroying the Collector base shouldn't have been a choice. It effectively nullified any relevance ME2 had to the larger story.

Choices should have been to give to Alliance/Council or Cerberus.

[David7204]

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

[KaiserShep]

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Man, this would've sucked a lot if it wasn't possible.

[grey_wind]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Yeah. Reminds me of the same kind of copout as the Circle Tower in DAO.

This is actaully one of the few "take a third option" moments in the trilogy I like. The peace on Rannoch is very important on a thematic level given ME's ideals that we can strive to work together and give the future a chance. Plus this is one of those options that takes actual work to achieve, and not won simply by having a buttload of Paragon/Renegade points.

*disdainfully* Reaper code...

[Sten disapproves -10]

I was just talking about the general concept of the peace on Rannoch.
The Reaper code is a pretty terrible plot development, and borders on character assassination.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

This again?

I can't think of a single other person on these boards who thinks like this...

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

.  The player determines whether peace is possible or not.  The player determines Shepard's choices.  How is that determining competence?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

Pre-game: No they're not.

In game: Yes, they are. The game literally contradicts you. You can fail at anny time. Just stand up and get killed. Game over.

Plus, you can totally blow it in both ME2 and ME3. 

You're wrong.

[in it for the lolz]

David7204 wrote...

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

WTF?!

[Steelcan]

KaiserShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Man, this would've sucked a lot if it wasn't possible.

"Making hard choices and dealing with the consequences, that is what being a leader is about"

[grey_wind]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Not the player's competence.

Shepard's.

The player is not the source of Shepard's success.

This again?

I can't think of a single other person on these boards who thinks like this...

You just don't undersatnd HEROISM!

[David7204]

What does the player do?

He sits on the couch and presses the buttons. Does the player save the galaxy? Defeat the Reapers? No. Shepard does.

If Shepard is a good soldier, it's because s/he's a good soldier. Not because you're a good player. If s/he's charismatic, it's because s/he's charismatic. Not because you're charismatic.

You don't 'earn' anything. You press buttons.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Man, this would've sucked a lot if it wasn't possible.

"Making hard choices and dealing with the consequences, that is what being a leader is about"

You're using that out of context. A tough decision can still be beneficial for all parties. It seems like you're using it as an excuse.

Regardless, having that in the game would be rather negative to people in prior playthroughs who actively tried to gear the Quarians and Geth closer to peace. It's bad enough I can't even stop the war before it starts.

[Steelcan]

David has been reduced to a meme.

Game over.

[DeinonSlayer]

StreetMagic wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Man, this would've sucked a lot if it wasn't possible.

"Making hard choices and dealing with the consequences, that is what being a leader is about"

Apparently, being leader in ME is really about finding the most optimal Mary Sue option and calling yourself a hero.

I'm calling it: the Shepard featured in the ME movie will be Male/Spacer/SoleSurvivor/Soldier/Paragon/Liaramancer who saves the Council, destroys the Collector Base, cures the Genophage, sides with the Geth (for teh dramaz - can't have everything go right) and chooses Synthesis.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

What does the player do?

He sits on the couch and presses the buttons. Does the player save the galaxy? Defeat the Reapers? No. Shepard does.

If Shepard is a good soldier, it's because s/he's a good soldier. Not because you're a good player. If s/he's charismatic, it's because s/he's charismatic. Not because you're charismatic.

You don't 'earn' anything. You press buttons.

........  That button pressing determines what Shepard does.  The player is responsible for Shepard's actions, its an interactive video game, not a book.

[David7204]

Really? You're the one having delusions of 'earning' all of these qualities that Shepard displays. I'm the one being perfectly honest. I'm the player. I press buttons on the controller. None of Shepard's qualities are a result of what I do.

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

That button pressing determines what Shepard does.  The player is responsible for Shepard's actions, its an interactive video game, not a book.

But it doesn't determine whether Shepard can or can't do it in the first place. Which is really what matters.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KaiserShep wrote..

Steelcan wrote...

I think the peace option should have been removed for Rannoch.

Man, this would've sucked a lot if it wasn't possible.

"Making hard choices and dealing with the consequences, that is what being a leader is about"

You're using that out of context. A tough decision can still be beneficial for all parties. It seems like you're using it as an excuse.

Regardless, having that in the game would be rather negative to people in prior playthroughs who actively tried to gear the Quarians and Geth closer to peace. It's bad enough I can't even stop the war before it starts.

.  You could also be pro-Cerberus in prior games, that got blown to hell.  The geth/quarian choice would be the perfect "hard choice"

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

That button pressing determines what Shepard does.  The player is responsible for Shepard's actions, its an interactive video game, not a book.

But it doesn't determine whether Shepard can or can't do it in the first place. Which is really what matters.

.  Actually it can.  Refuse, that is all.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

What does the player do?

He sits on the couch and presses the buttons. Does the player save the galaxy? Defeat the Reapers? No. Shepard does.

The player does everything. Everything about Shepard is whatever the player wants it to be (discounting the greatly reduced player agency in ME3). Shepard even moves in the direction you want him to. He says whatever you want him to say (minus auto-dialogue). More appropriately, he thinks whatever you want him to think. Shepard, though defined on his own to a degree, is the avatar for the player. The means by which the player experiences the video game. 

If Shepard is a good soldier, it's because s/he's a good soldier. Not because you're a good player. If s/he's charismatic, it's because s/he's charismatic. Not because you're charismatic.

You don't 'earn' anything. You press buttons.

Shepard is a good soldier (or bad soldier) at the behest of the player. As I said, everything about Shepard is determined by the player. His decisions, his background, his class, his name, his appearance, everything except his surname and his voice.