1007 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If heroism is meaningful, then 'good' choices logically need to lead to the best outcome.

If good storytelling is meaningful, then 'good'  choices logically shouldn't always lead ot the best outcome.


Also, the Paragon choices aren't always the most heroic choices. For example; keeping the collector base is more heroic than destroying the collector base. Keeping the base is a courageous choice (heroism), while destroying the base is just Shepard being a stubborn ****** who lets fear compromise his better judgement.

I wish destroying the base or keeping it had no paragon or renagade marker. I destroyed it because i did not trust cerburus not because i did not want the tec.

[Xilizhra]

Fixers0 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Aside from your constant misunderstandings of justice, when has this ever been the case in the series?

Yes. perhaps you should play the first game for a change.

Well, let's see. The major Renegade decisions there involve killing people, sacrificing allies, sometimes just being a jerk... there are Renegade options to benefit certain individuals, but those are either mirorred by Paragon options to do the same, or have Paragon helping other individuals instead (Gianna Parasini vs. Anoleis, for instance).

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, let's see. The major Renegade decisions there involve killing people, sacrificing allies, sometimes just being a jerk... there are Renegade options to benefit certain individuals, but those are either mirorred by Paragon options to do the same, or have Paragon helping other individuals instead (Gianna Parasini vs. Anoleis, for instance).

I don't reconginze myself in your description, clarfy, please.

[Xilizhra]

Fixers0 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, let's see. The major Renegade decisions there involve killing people, sacrificing allies, sometimes just being a jerk... there are Renegade options to benefit certain individuals, but those are either mirorred by Paragon options to do the same, or have Paragon helping other individuals instead (Gianna Parasini vs. Anoleis, for instance).

I don't reconginze myself in your description, clarfy, please.

I don't know what choices you made, so I can't say.

[Podge 90]

Liamv2 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If heroism is meaningful, then 'good' choices logically need to lead to the best outcome.

If good storytelling is meaningful, then 'good'  choices logically shouldn't always lead ot the best outcome.


Also, the Paragon choices aren't always the most heroic choices. For example; keeping the collector base is more heroic than destroying the collector base. Keeping the base is a courageous choice (heroism), while destroying the base is just Shepard being a stubborn ****** who lets fear compromise his better judgement.

I wish destroying the base or keeping it had no paragon or renagade marker. I destroyed it because i did not trust cerburus not because i did not want the tec.

+1.  I always destroyed it anyway, but after ME3, you'd be daft not to destroy it, thanks to the benefit of meta-gaming.

It's similar to the genophage.  I don't cure it because I don't trust the Krogan, but in this case we don't see what the repercussions are once the krogan population has significantly increased.

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
I don't know what choices you made, so I can't say.

That's why is ask you to clarify statements about renegade options, I don't believe my plathroughs are relevant here.

[Ieldra]

Ah, one of these threads again.

I don't feel like repeating in depth what I've said countless times, but yes, the OP is completely correct. ME suffers from a dual case of pushing a traditionalist agenda and a feel-good morality.

The former is apparent in the geth/quarian conflict carrying the theme that only life forms with human-like individuality are valid life, Synthesis carrying the theme that only life forms with organic-like emotions are valid, and the original ending the theme that technology is evil and best completely gone.

The latter is apparent because in the great majority of all decisions, making the decision that makes you feel good inevitably has the best outcome. Most of the time this is the classically good decision, but ME2 really shows where the priorities lie: the decision at Tali's trial. Withholding the evidence is not, by any means, a "good" decision, but it makes you feel good on the personal level and thus it has the best outcome as a matter of course.

I think this is delusional, and I've said so for years. There should be no discernable pattern to the outcomes of decisions if you have no way to predict or influence the outcome. Pragmatic decisions wouldn't be perceived as pragmatic, ever, in reality, if the pragmatic option didn't occasionally have a better outcome when compared to the idealistic one. This applies especially to big decisions since in the smaller ones the outcome is rarely worth the immediate drawbacks of the pragmatic option.

In the only case where an idealistic choice backfires - if you cure the genophage with Wreav in charge - the game hits you over the head with the message that this is a bad idea. Wherever you take a real gamble though, as in curing the genophage at all, the outcome will inevitably favor the idealistic choice, while making pragmatic choices yields no benefit at all but inevitably incurs drawbacks.

I resent this heavy-handed moralizing. DAO did this so much better. The decision about the Anvil of the Void was the CB decision done right. So much for that.

[Ieldra]

Ah, one of these threads again.

I don't feel like repeating in depth what I've said countless times, but yes, the OP is completely correct. ME suffers from a dual case of pushing a traditionalist agenda and a feel-good morality.

The former is apparent in the geth/quarian conflict carrying the theme that only life forms with human-like individuality are valid life, Synthesis carrying the theme that only life forms with organic-like emotions are valid, and the original ending the theme that technology is evil and best completely gone.

The latter is apparent because in the great majority of all decisions, making the decision that makes you feel good inevitably has the best outcome. Most of the time this is the classically good decision, but ME2 really shows where the priorities lie: the decision at Tali's trial. Withholding the evidence is not, by any means, a "good" decision, but it makes you feel good on the personal level and thus it has the best outcome as a matter of course.

I think this is delusional, and I've said so for years. There should be no discernable pattern to the outcomes of decisions if you have no way to predict or influence the outcome. Pragmatic decisions wouldn't be perceived as pragmatic, ever, in reality, if the pragmatic option didn't occasionally have a better outcome when compared to the idealistic one. This applies especially to big decisions since in the smaller ones the outcome is rarely worth the immediate drawbacks of the pragmatic option.

In the only case where an idealistic choice backfires - if you cure the genophage with Wreav in charge - the game hits you over the head with the message that this is a bad idea. Wherever you take a real gamble though, as in curing the genophage at all, the outcome will inevitably favor the idealistic choice, while making pragmatic choices yields no benefit at all but inevitably incurs drawbacks.

I resent this heavy-handed moralizing. DAO did this so much better. The decision about the Anvil of the Void was the CB decision done right. So much for that.

[Liamv2]

Exactly i mean neither my renegade or paragon character would ever keep the base. "yeah i am going to trust the terrorist organization that has killed thousands of innocents and have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted". The overlord DLC and Jack's loyalty mission in particular shows that the illusive man can't control his own organization.

[Xilizhra]

The former is apparent in the geth/quarian conflict carrying the theme that only life forms with human-like individuality are valid life, Synthesis carrying the theme that only life forms with organic-like emotions are valid, and the original ending the theme that technology is evil and best completely gone.

I never saw the original ending so can't comment on that, but the other two are wholly wrong. The geth only upgraded because their hive mind turned out to be a horrible strategic weakness and they needed to evolve past that; it had nothing to do with morality. As for Synthesis, it only produced understanding of organics, not identical emotion; EDI doesn't really sound any different in the Synthesis ending than she did prior.

The latter is apparent because in the great majority of all decisions, making the decision that makes you feel good inevitably has the best outcome. Most of the time this is the classically good decision, but ME2 really shows where the priorities lie: the decision at Tali's trial. Withholding the evidence is not, by any means, a "good" decision, but it makes you feel good on the personal level and thus it has the best outcome as a matter of course.

As I've mentioned several times, it's the decision that any IRL lawyer would have to make if they didn't want to get disbarred. In any case, it's not even a particularly good outcome; the best is exposing the court's corruption, and that's either both Paragon/Renegade, or neutral.

I think this is delusional, and I've said so for years. There should be no discernable pattern to the outcomes of decisions if you have no way to predict or influence the outcome. Pragmatic decisions wouldn't be perceived as pragmatic, ever, in reality, if the pragmatic option didn't occasionally have a better outcome when compared to the idealistic one. This applies especially to big decisions since in the smaller ones the outcome is rarely worth the immediate drawbacks of the pragmatic option.

This is because of your utterly false dichotomy between idealism and pragmatism. Renegade decisions are frequently idealistic, primarily ones that involve agreeing with Cerberus and other celebrations of human supremacy, and I've never seen a Paragon decision not based on some degree of pragmatism.

In the only case where an idealistic choice backfires - if you cure the genophage with Wreav in charge - the game hits you over the head with the message that this is a bad idea. Wherever you take a real gamble though, as in curing the genophage at all, the outcome will inevitably favor the idealistic choice, while making pragmatic choices yields no benefit at all but inevitably incurs drawbacks.

Well, curing the genophage is sort of a pragmatic asset to defeating the Reapers, given that it was the whole point of that arc so you could get the turians' help. Beyond that, though, it's not the best decision for the future unless all possible factors are in place (but is of course more helpful with the immediate problem of the Reapers).

[The Heretic of Time]

Podge 90 wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If heroism is meaningful, then 'good' choices logically need to lead to the best outcome.

If good storytelling is meaningful, then 'good'  choices logically shouldn't always lead ot the best outcome.


Also, the Paragon choices aren't always the most heroic choices. For example; keeping the collector base is more heroic than destroying the collector base. Keeping the base is a courageous choice (heroism), while destroying the base is just Shepard being a stubborn ****** who lets fear compromise his better judgement.

I wish destroying the base or keeping it had no paragon or renagade marker. I destroyed it because i did not trust cerburus not because i did not want the tec.

+1.  I always destroyed it anyway, but after ME3, you'd be daft not to destroy it, thanks to the benefit of meta-gaming.

Thanks to the benefit of meta-gaming you should know that KEEPING the collector base grants you 10 war assets extra.

So after ME3, thanks to the benefit of meta-gaming, you would be daft NOT to KEEP the collector base.

But then again, it's always daft NOT to KEEP the collector base, no matter how you look at it.

[Xilizhra]

It'd be daft... if you were actually keeping it as opposed to giving it to shady fellows who turn out to have been enemies all along.

[Xilizhra]

Strictly speaking, Collector tech has never indoctrinated anyone. And some examples of Reaper tech, such as EDI and mass relays, have not done so either. Indoctrination tends to be done by Reaper bodies or specific devices built for that purpose.

[Wulfram]

The renegade path already comes dangerously close to being an apology for atrocity and murder with the way it uncritically casts a murderer and war criminal as hero.

[Sir DeLoria]

There's quite a few good renegade options my Paragon Shep did:

- killing Fist
- killing Balak
- destroying the heretics
- destroying the Geth
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with Legion/Geth VI
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with EDI

Still always got a nearly flawless Paragon playthrough every time and is still consistent with the character.

[Xilizhra]

Necanor wrote...

There's quite a few good renegade options my Paragon Shep did:

- killing Fist
- killing Balak
- destroying the heretics
- destroying the Geth
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with Legion/Geth VI
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with EDI

Still always got a nearly flawless Paragon playthrough every time and is still consistent with the character.

Remarkable how much of that is heinously evil.

[Fixers0]

Xilizhra wrote...
Remarkable how much of that is heinously evil.

Executing a criminal leader and a terrorist leader and blowing up some machines, you've got some rather odd and disturbing views on the concepts of good and evil. then again using those concept at all makes me somewhat suspecious.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Headbutting the krogan is renegade, and it was a hell of a lot better than owning him with a witty insult.

[Xilizhra]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It's only evil if you think the synthetics are anything more than programs. Which is debatable.

Not to anyone with a shred of decency. Or, to put it another way, they're only programs in the same way we're only meat; it's true, but there's a lot of variation between different kinds, hence the difference in treatment between intelligent synthetics and unintelligent programs.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

Necanor wrote...

There's quite a few good renegade options my Paragon Shep did:

- killing Fist
- killing Balak
- destroying the heretics
- destroying the Geth
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with Legion/Geth VI
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with EDI

Still always got a nearly flawless Paragon playthrough every time and is still consistent with the character.

Remarkable how much of that is heinously evil.

There is nothing evil about any of that.

[Xilizhra]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Necanor wrote...

There's quite a few good renegade options my Paragon Shep did:

- killing Fist
- killing Balak
- destroying the heretics
- destroying the Geth
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with Legion/Geth VI
- every anti-synthetic dialogue option with EDI

Still always got a nearly flawless Paragon playthrough every time and is still consistent with the character.

Remarkable how much of that is heinously evil.

There is nothing evil about any of that.

The first three are debateable. The last three are fiendish.