203 réponses à ce sujet

[Bionuts]

It's like Bioware was really trying to get you to go for it.

Notice how much focus they put on curing it?

You get long conversations of support from Mordin, Padok Wiks, and a sob story from Eve. And if you had Wrex...

"I love you"

"my friend"

While the person representing the sabotage was the racist, arrogant, Dalatrass. And Wreav made a few comments that made you wary.

Instead of really diving into the pros and cons of the situation, they decided to use emotions and the power of friendship to convince your Shepard to make an extremely important decision.

I was disappointed.

[o Ventus]

These things also only appear based on your decisions from the past games.

[DJBare]

Bionuts wrote...
Instead of really diving into the pros and cons of the situation, they decided to use emotions and the power of friendship to convince your Shepard to make an extremely important decision.

I believe that was the whole point, sometimes you have to make difficult decisions, even when those dicisions go against the things you've stood for, the writers knew Wrex had a big fan club, so the choice becomes go with your friendly Wrex and risk over population and possibly another Krogan rebellion or destroy the cure.

[Bionuts]

Wreav/Wrex.

But you get Eve's sob story, and Mordin/Padok Wiks long conversation of support. No matter what.

And they really did it with Wrex. If you have Wrex in your party, it's a big "no no no no don't sabotage". The power of friendship blah blah.

[Bionuts]

DJBare wrote...

Bionuts wrote...
Instead of really diving into the pros and cons of the situation, they decided to use emotions and the power of friendship to convince your Shepard to make an extremely important decision.

I believe that was the whole point, sometimes you have to make difficult decisions, even when those dicisions go against the things you've stood for, the writers knew Wrex had a big fan club, so the choice becomes go with your friendly Wrex and risk over population and possibly another Krogan rebellion or destroy the cure.

What I mean is that they should have had someone to counter pro-cure Moridan/Padok Wiks, Eve, etc.

They had a racist, arrogant, Dalatrass represent the sabotage. While having so much conversation to support the cure. It was intentional, no doubt.

For such an extremely important decision there wasn't any conversation that really delved into the pros and cons.

[cooldonkeyfish]

The point was to make it a hard decision, you have to ask whether it's important to get that extra support from the Salarians or not.

[Bionuts]

cooldonkeyfish wrote...

The point was to make it a hard decision, you have to ask whether it's important to get that extra support from the Salarians or not.

They were not trying to make it a hard decision.

If they were, then you would've had 1 or 2 anti-cure people that talked in depth about the situation. Perhaps instead of "racist, meanie, DALATRASS!!! (<_< really bioware?)", they could've had someone very knowledgeable explain the situation in depth.

[TheProtheans]

You already know what the cons may be, hence the reason the genophage was enacted.
That is the underlining message throughout all the games, the Krogan are a risky investment and are extremely dangerous.

No amount of pro's can undo the damage they got in ME1 and everything we learned about them.
It depends on your Shepard, does he believe the Krogan deserve a second chance considering how dangerous they were thousands of years ago?
If your Shepard is reasonable and already gave the Rachni their own chance then he should have no problem doing the same with Krogan.

And ultimately if Wreav is there then you really should not cure it as the Krogan need a reasonable leader like Wrex.
I think the history of the Krogan is enough of a con.

[Kataphrut94]

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

[Bionuts]

It doesn't matter who the leader is. I'm not into the whole "princess" fairytale.

But it should have been properly addressed in ME3 since that is where the choice is being made. Pro-cure was also addressed in ME2, but that didn't stop Bioware from going nuts with it in ME3.

[TheProtheans]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

There is more to decisions than just it is too moralist for me, a hard headed Shepard would think it was too moralist.
What would a renegade Shepard do on Rannoch?

[KaiserShep]

If you played all three games, you kind of have all the context you need to judge for yourself, provided you actually went through all the dialogue with Wrex, Mordin and Maelon. The character to counter Mordin, Padok whoever is Shepard.

[TheProtheans]

Bionuts wrote...

It doesn't matter who the leader is. I'm not into the whole "princess" fairytale.

But it should have been properly addressed in ME3 since that is where the choice is being made. Pro-cure was also addressed in ME2, but that didn't stop Bioware from going nuts with it in ME3.

How doesn't it matter who the leader is when the leader is the biggest pro or con of the decision as they influence their entire species and help decide if you can trust the Krogan enough to give them a second chance.

[Bionuts]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

I'm talking about the intentions of Bioware, as well as the bad writing concerning the decision. Good writing would have not treated such a situation so lightly. It's a very important decision to make. The pros and cons should be layed on the table, and there should be at least one person talking in depth about the cons of curing the genophage.

[Bionuts]

TheProtheans wrote...

How doesn't it matter who the leader is when the leader is the biggest pro or con of the decision as they influence their entire species and help decide if you can trust the Krogan enough to give them a second chance.

I do not believe in princess fairytales. I would not trust the lives of so many people on 1 or 2 persons. Not to say they don't have good intentions, but they are not gods.

[TheProtheans]

You went through the full trilogy known how dangerous the Krogan are.
While another character doesn't hurt the game it doesn't strengthen the argument to not cure the Krogan because before Mass effect 3 you should be extremely wary of the Krogan and reluctant to cure them.
They would only be telling you want you already know of the Krogan, most of those pro-cure are showing another angle of the view.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 04 octobre 2013 - 12:55 .

[Kataphrut94]

TheProtheans wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

There is more to decisions than just it is too moralist for me, a hard headed Shepard would think it was too moralist.
What would a renegade Shepard do on Rannoch?

That's exactly the point. That kind of Shepard isn't thinking about the morals or the bleeding hearts, he's thinking "Those guys were sterilised for a reason, let's not pretend things will be different next time".

As for Rannoch, well, dialogue wheel says he pick the quarians. That's harder to judge since he was an **** to both sides in the previous games.

[Seboist]

Bioware can't do moral greyness, what else is new?

[TheProtheans]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

There is more to decisions than just it is too moralist for me, a hard headed Shepard would think it was too moralist.
What would a renegade Shepard do on Rannoch?

That's exactly the point. That kind of Shepard isn't thinking about the morals or the bleeding hearts, he's thinking "Those guys were sterilised for a reason, let's not pretend things will be different next time".

As for Rannoch, well, dialogue wheel says he pick the quarians. That's harder to judge since he was an **** to both sides in the previous games.

That wasn't the point I was going for.
The Reapers are destroying entire worlds and organics standing alone have no chance of winning.
Shepard should not be thinking they were sterlised for a reason and I'm not going to change that.

He should be thinking "my species is being culled and how do I do my best to make sure that we survive as a species."
Is a smart Shepard really going to give the Reapers an even better chance of victory because he didn't have the balls to make a hard decision which may come back to bite at a later date.
And even if it does bite, is it less preferables than everyone being potentially killed by the Reapers?

[Bionuts]

TheProtheans wrote...

You went through the full trilogy known how dangerous the Krogan are.
While another character doesn't hurt the game it doesn't strengthen the argument to not cure the Krogan because before Mass effect 3 you should be extremely wary of the Krogan and reluctant to cure them.
They would only be telling you want you already know of the Krogan, most of those pro-cure are showing another angle of the view.

It was bad writing, and it was done intentionally.

Since I know so little about the people behind ME, I'd guess that many of the writers changed hands going into ME3. A good guess since the previous games were not so heavily biased and cartoony concerning the genophage.

[Kataphrut94]

Bionuts wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

I'm talking about the intentions of Bioware, as well as the bad writing concerning the decision. Good writing would have not treated such a situation so lightly. It's a very important decision to make. The pros and cons should be layed on the table, and there should be at least one person talking in depth about the cons of curing the genophage.

I would hardly say the treated it lightly. The difference is that preventing the cure wasn't really an option until the final mission where the Dalatrass makes her offer. Everyone expected the cure would be the definitive solution, so most of the build up involved characters trying to justify the decision. Primarch Victus believed the cure was necessary to fight the Reapers, Mordin thought they would act as a common enemy to unite the infighting clans, Wrex and Eve tried to convince people that they could be trusted, Padok was just a big old idealist and Wreav loved holding all the cards. If you take the Renegade path during those scenes, the attitutde was less about being pro-cure and more about not having any other option.

Most of the real cons of the cure come inadvertantly from the krogan themselves; Wreav's not exactly subtle about it, but Wrex's casual references to expanding off-world are cause for alarm bells and you can call him out on it. Eve's more sensible about it in that she understands what went wrong last time and wants to improve, but it's up to you whether or not that amounts to anything.

Plus, there's that one-off conversation with EDI about the logistics of a genophage cure that tells you every conceivable short-term issue better than any of the politicians or scientists ever could.

[Kataphrut94]

TheProtheans wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's not about whether it's pleasant or makes you feel good, it's about what's best for the greater good. That's what the Renegade Shep is all about; you can give him your strawman Dalatrasses, your krogan sob stories and your heartfelt pleas for a cure, he'll still sabotage that cure every time because he's above such petty moralising.

There is more to decisions than just it is too moralist for me, a hard headed Shepard would think it was too moralist.
What would a renegade Shepard do on Rannoch?

That's exactly the point. That kind of Shepard isn't thinking about the morals or the bleeding hearts, he's thinking "Those guys were sterilised for a reason, let's not pretend things will be different next time".

As for Rannoch, well, dialogue wheel says he pick the quarians. That's harder to judge since he was an **** to both sides in the previous games.

That wasn't the point I was going for.
The Reapers are destroying entire worlds and organics standing alone have no chance of winning.
Shepard should not be thinking they were sterlised for a reason and I'm not going to change that.

He should be thinking "my species is being culled and how do I do my best to make sure that we survive as a species."
Is a smart Shepard really going to give the Reapers an even better chance of victory because he didn't have the balls to make a hard decision which may come back to bite at a later date.
And even if it does bite, is it less preferables than everyone being potentially killed by the Reapers?

If the Reapers win, what happens with the cure is irrelevant. It's what happens after the war that's important. If the krogan are cured, they'll be in an incredibly strong position, being able to quickly regenerate their numbers while everyone else has been severely weakened. The real question to ask is whether or not they can be trusted in that position.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 04 octobre 2013 - 01:19 .

[Bionuts]

The situation was not taken as serious as it should've have been.

A decision more important than most games ever offer, and you have Shepard humming the truck unsure what to do. Horrible.

The cons should've been stressed. Even if it came from the Dalatrass it would've been good enough, but they wanted to make her a cartoon character.

[Podge 90]

I really wish ME3 didn't retcon what Mordin told us in ME2. He stated that the genophage was commonly and incorrectly seen as a sterility plague, when it was in fact a form of population control, something that can fluctuate with the Krogan species.

But then ME3 makes it out as if we don't cure the 'phage, we doom the Krogan species. So something that was fantastically grey, became unnecessarily black and white.

So I never cure it.

[Sir DeLoria]

Just to clear things up, annihilating either the Geth or the Quarians is neither a Paragon nor Renegade choice. The placement on the dialogue wheel doesn't mean anything. The only Paragon choice on Rannoch is achieving peace, the only Renegade choice is achieving it the hard way.