117 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

in it for the lolz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You don't have a very good grasp of logic, do you?

If A leads to B, B does not imply A.

I have a great grasp of logic (nonlike yourself). *Next thing you will be saying is that droping a nuke on a city full of none combatants (whos country is at with your own) is a good idea*.

*I bet that you dont know what I am talking at

Uh, David's like the polar opposite of that. For better or worse.

[David7204]

I've never seen any of the people I'm talking about drop Atlas Shrugged into an argument defending humanity at the expense of aliens.

[shodiswe]

The Quarians probably signed the Treaty of Farixen more than 300 years ago when they were an "associate species", all associate species are required to sign it before joining.

Getting thrown out for breaking laws and causing trouble doesn't nessesarily invalidate treaties signed by their government.

[David7204]

Huh. Interesting. Although not really relavant, since I'm talking about the people on the forum here and now.

Well, so long as we're on the topic of ironies, I might as well point out one more.

The subtlety of Objectivism that far too many people miss is that the ideal Objectivist isn't a philosopher at all. He has no interest in it. He carries indifferent contempt towards such things. And Rand knew it.

To that end, any kind of politics, any kind of movement, even any kind of discussion of it is a betrayal. So if you meet anyone who is happily willing to discuss it, willing to bring up the topic without provocation - that should be a huge red light. Anyone who starts or participates in a book club, a discussion group, an internet forum - that's far worse. That might as well be a label on their forehead that they missed the fundamentals. Even the existence of the philosophy at all, of the word 'objectivist,' is a small betrayal.

The real examples should be, at worst, reluctant. And ideally, invisible.

Modifié par David7204, 12 octobre 2013 - 09:15 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

You two seem more delusional than the rumors claimed.

David, you claim that the players who are renegade are only doing things because the game told them to. But is it not the same case with the paragon players as well? They only believe they are doing the right thing in their actions because the game told them it was what they were suppose to do, and awarded them with points they would use to further unlock options they wanted. That sounds like pavlovian programming to me, paragon or renegade, those who allow ideology to bind their thinking are doomed to be guided. I find pure paragoners and renegades to be annoying, but I also find them to be rare amongst the renegade crowd, and more prevelant amongst the paragon crowd in my experience as a mostly paragon player.

And as for you Arcian, I'm willing to bet you don't have proof to back up even 1/4 of what you claim, and are trying to engage in what could best be summarized as smear tactics. Such disgraceful acts is beneath respect, so you shall recieve none from me.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 12 octobre 2013 - 09:53 .

[RainbowDazed]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

... these are further re-inforced by the general "feel good" nature of the Paragon path. You're made to feel good about: freeing David, undermining Cerberus, saving the refinery works, helping Kenn, choosing to destroy the 'base... and it's mostly ignored that Shepard was rather prickish about all these things. At least with the Renegade path, acts of intimidation and brutality are tempered by not leading to the most happy and feel-good outcomes.

This one understands. I'm currently doing a paragon playthrough of the trilogy and god it hurts so bad. I don't know if I can take the pain! Like seriously, what kind of npd-douche lets his/her best friend believe he won a shooting contest? What an manipulative ass that Shepard is!

Renegade on the other hand. Sure, she lets civilians die, shoots merciful evil hecnhmen (my sig) , throws henchmen out of the window, punches reporters and what not. But she's honest, real and does what is needed to get the job done, not to feel good about herself. Though some of the renegadechoices are a bit out-of-character too me thinks (sometimes it feels like Shepard is just being a jerk for no reason at all). 

Still, renegade 4ever.

[Xilizhra]

Some of Paragon Shepard's actions are in the "good is not nice" category. I approve of that and share your interpretation of the scene with Zaeed, but it doesn't always work that way. The way you treat Gavin Archer in ME3 if you play Paragon is a better example of what I wouldn't expect a Paragon Shepard to do.

I'm pretty sure you're pissed at him regardless of whether you're Paragon or Renegade.

Yeah, the Geth have a long history of blowing up any ship that enters the Veil, armed or not. Arming the ships was smart, the Geth would've targeted them anyway.

A plot point never mentioned by anyone after ME1, even the pro-war side. I think that Bioware forgot about it and didn't write ME2 or ME3 taking that into account.

Is the Paragon system really unflawed and 100% correct in your eyes? I play mostly Paragon too, but occasionally the neutral or Renegade responses are far better. Do you really believe in making Javik commit suicide for example?

Barely flawed, and far less so than Renegade. Also, having Javik commit suicide (while admittedly not necessarily bad for the galaxy) isn't actually a Paragon option, as you don't get Paragon points for making it.

This one understands. I'm currently doing a paragon playthrough of the trilogy and god it hurts so bad. I don't know if I can take the pain! Like seriously, what kind of npd-douche lets his/her best friend believe he won a shooting contest? What an manipulative ass that Shepard is!

A. you don't get Paragon points for it, and B. it's incredibly easy to fluff as Shepard genuinely being not as good with a sniper rifle as Garrus, which unless Shepard is an infiltrator, is really quite plausible.

[KaiserShep]

And regarding Javik, how would anyone even know that he'd commit suicide unless you read ahead somewhere anyway? I sure didn't, though I'm glad that my first option was to leave it alone.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 12 octobre 2013 - 12:11 .

[RainbowDazed]

Xilizhra wrote...

This one understands. I'm currently doing a paragon playthrough of the trilogy and god it hurts so bad. I don't know if I can take the pain! Like seriously, what kind of npd-douche lets his/her best friend believe he won a shooting contest? What an manipulative ass that Shepard is!

A. you don't get Paragon points for it, and B. it's incredibly easy to fluff as Shepard genuinely being not as good with a sniper rifle as Garrus, which unless Shepard is an infiltrator, is really quite plausible.

I think it's just poorly executed. It's offered as a paragonish choice and it's always there. I agree that a Shepard who is not a sniper should lose that contents. But she shouldn't have to choose to lose, you know. She could try to win but would lose anyways.

[Xilizhra]

RainbowDazed wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This one understands. I'm currently doing a paragon playthrough of the trilogy and god it hurts so bad. I don't know if I can take the pain! Like seriously, what kind of npd-douche lets his/her best friend believe he won a shooting contest? What an manipulative ass that Shepard is!

A. you don't get Paragon points for it, and B. it's incredibly easy to fluff as Shepard genuinely being not as good with a sniper rifle as Garrus, which unless Shepard is an infiltrator, is really quite plausible.

I think it's just poorly executed. It's offered as a paragonish choice and it's always there. I agree that a Shepard who is not a sniper should lose that contents. But she shouldn't have to choose to lose, you know. She could try to win but would lose anyways.

Well, it's possible for any class to use a sniper rifle in ME3, so they had to leave the possibility open.

And Renegade's honesty means nothing to me when it does so much harm.

[Display Name Owner]

Well the thing is, Shepard is a killer. Violence is his job, it's the means he employs to achieve most every objective. That's part of the reason why Paragon's whole goody goody theme is taken too far for my liking. Obviously soldiers can have morals, but Shep can't realistically be the pacifistic nice guy Paragon often makes him out to be.

I feel like Paragon's more 'tyrannical' actions make a lot more sense than the outright nice ones, depending on the context obviously. It's the over the top Good Guy Greg stuff that makes it weird if you ask me.

Modifié par isnudo, 12 octobre 2013 - 12:27 .

[RainbowDazed]

Xilizhra wrote...

RainbowDazed wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This one understands. I'm currently doing a paragon playthrough of the trilogy and god it hurts so bad. I don't know if I can take the pain! Like seriously, what kind of npd-douche lets his/her best friend believe he won a shooting contest? What an manipulative ass that Shepard is!

A. you don't get Paragon points for it, and B. it's incredibly easy to fluff as Shepard genuinely being not as good with a sniper rifle as Garrus, which unless Shepard is an infiltrator, is really quite plausible.

I think it's just poorly executed. It's offered as a paragonish choice and it's always there. I agree that a Shepard who is not a sniper should lose that contents. But she shouldn't have to choose to lose, you know. She could try to win but would lose anyways.

Well, it's possible for any class to use a sniper rifle in ME3, so they had to leave the possibility open.

And Renegade's honesty means nothing to me when it does so much harm.

Sometimes you have to be prepared to do harm to do good. And Shepard has the guts to do that.

On the other part I think we agree - I was thinking of a system in which the game mechanics chose the outcome of the sniping-battle based on how much sniper-rifles your Shepard had used in-game.

[KaiserShep]

RainbowDazed wrote...
I think it's just poorly executed. It's offered as a paragonish choice and it's always there. I agree that a Shepard who is not a sniper should lose that contents. But she shouldn't have to choose to lose, you know. She could try to win but would lose anyways.

Thing is, the only way to try to win and lose anyway is to simply make it a playable scene where you're actually shooting bottles being thrown. They'd really have to design that scene so that somehow the bottles are easy to shoot, otherwise everyone would be subject to Garrus' gloating.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 12 octobre 2013 - 12:38 .

[Xilizhra]

isnudo wrote...

Well the thing is, Shepard is a killer. Violence is his job, it's the means he employs to achieve most every objective. That's part of the reason why Paragon's whole goody goody theme is taken too far for my liking. Obviously soldiers can have morals, but Shep can't realistically be the pacifistic nice guy Paragon often makes him out to be.

I feel like Paragon's more 'tyrannical' actions make a lot more sense than the outright nice ones, depending on the context obviously. It's the over the top Good Guy Greg stuff that makes it weird if you ask me.

Why is this somehow impossible? I think it's wholly plausible that one can kill without it having to turn them somehow unpleasant like that.

[KaiserShep]

Paragon is in no way pacifistic.

[Display Name Owner]

I'm not saying Shep should be a psycho, but sometimes Paragon is just a bit too moralistic and high horsey. I'm probably thinking more of ME1 Shep here, because I definitely remember finding him a lot less insufferable in ME2. And yeah, pacifistic was probably the wrong word.

I dunno. I just don't think Paragon Shep using violence goes against what Shepard should be like given what he does.

[Baihu1983]

Poor writing.

Still see it as dumb that its renegade to shot Udina when doing so saves the Asaris life. Same with Leng at the end.[hell even dumber is Shepard kills him if you don't press anything.

[Jagri]

Never understood why it was considered a renegade interruption to defend yourself or others with lethal force. I think it should have been a neutral option.

[KaiserShep]

Renegade =/= immoral. I can simply be a matter of being more aggressive, when in the end, the result is pretty much the same. Take setting the leader of clan Weyrloc on fire. It was pretty obvious, from all his hilarious spewing of the terrible things he plans to do once the genophage is cured, that there's not going to be a reason-with-him option, so screw it. His ass gets to die first.

[Arcian]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You two seem more delusional than the rumors claimed.

-dont give none bout david-

And as for you Arcian, I'm willing to bet you don't have proof to back up even 1/4 of what you claim, and are trying to engage in what could best be summarized as smear tactics. Such disgraceful acts is beneath respect, so you shall recieve none from me.

Feel free to prove me wrong, buddy. I would welcome it, as it would mean there are less objectivists on the BSN than I originally perceived.

[Seboist]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And as for you Arcian, I'm willing to bet you don't have proof to back up even 1/4 of what you claim, and are trying to engage in what could best be summarized as smear tactics. Such disgraceful acts is beneath respect, so you shall recieve none from me.

You'll have to forgive him as his ass is still sore from the Renegades he tried mocking back in the day being on the money about how ME3 will turn out.

See, if he would listened to us then he would have known already back in the ME2 days that the "trilogy" was little more than a series of sub-par Gears clones with non-choices that aren't worth a damn and such an abysmal continuity and consistency that it'd give the Metal Gear Solid franchise a run for it's money.

Also, LOL at how even David thinks his assertions are out there.

[Aurora313]

Frankly, Shepard is not a good person. I have never seen them as a good person, I never will see them as a good person. But what I do see them is someone who can get results through honourable or contemptible means. Despite how the writing pans out, Shepard had a code of honour which he will never break. He does not brook cowards, traitors or anyone who goes after his crew. Shepard also doesn't take taunts lying down. He inspires their loyalty despite how he conducts business and whether or not he betrays that loyalty is entirely up to the player.

Particularly, when you consider Shepard's relatively young age compared to the rank he possesses, and the lingers physiological effects the pre-selected histories and service records may or may not imply - one could even go so far as to say 'Shepard' as we perceive him isn't entirely a stable or healthy human being. One could argue we do not even know who Shepard really is under that professional mask. ME3 gives us a glimpse at a tired, frustrated individual whose ready to snap and lash out at a moment's notice, but this is after several years of fighting a war partically by himself so that must be taken into account. If one takes the renegade route in ME3, Shepard appears to be simply pyscotic and has indeed snapped from the strain of war. Frankly, I don't believe a Paragon Shepard is that far away from that unstable state - instead, a Paragon is simply better at hiding it.

At the very least, he's had to bury his fair share of corpses. There's also the additional factor of his 'N7' designation. People are EXPECTED to die when they are selected for that special training. If my memory serves only about 20% of candidates survive to become proficiency level 7, and Shepard graduated at the top. While this has happened in the past, the First game sets off with Shepard being lined up for Spectreship.

So, already in ME1, his standards are set unnaturally high for a human and as a 'shiny example' of humanity, he would naturally have to be on his best behaviour. Come ME2 however, he's now working with Cerberus, an assumed terrorist organisation. The Council and Alliance have basically disavowed him and he's working as a long wolf essentially.

Now, one could argue that ME2 is where we see the REAL Shepard. As a paragon he's far more willing to make compromises. In ME2, we see that Shepard's far more willing to strike fast-and-loose bargains with his enemies, gun folks down and basically do his own thing for the benefit of the galaxy, albeit slightly more politely than a Renegade would. With the two organisations he had to represent no longer watching his actions as closely, and severing their ties with Shepard, the Commander is now free to behave in a more relaxed, less acted manner. Since Cerberus isn't too picky with how you do things, Shepard essentially has free reign over his own ship and mission. Sure, he has a sense of morality, but since its no longer tempered by the idea of being Humanity's 'golden boy', he's open to far more darker means to accomplish his goals.

A Paragon Shepard is arguably WORSE than a Renegade. If a Renegade get wronged by a random guy - for the sake of this argument a politician (Easy pickings, I know.), a Renegade would just shot 'em stone dead. A Paragon however will do something that would utterly destroy the Politician's credibility, reliability, sensibility and leave the poor bastard's pride in some many pieces that it would take a lifetime to even begin to recover it. Basically destroying the poor bastard's life's work. Lets look at the comparison:

Renegade - Outright kills offender.
Paragon - Lets offender suffer social, professional and personal humiliation. Destroys entire livelihood.

At least the Renegade is merciful enough to just shoot the guy and not make him suffer.

Personally, I play an Paragon... ish... Earthborn Warhero Shepard. My view on his character is that he is not 'good' by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he's very much a sociopath who delights in warfare, loves a good battle and suffers fools and time-wasters poorly. I cannot in good conscience make a 'good' Shepard.

Paragon Shepard? I can play just fine, but a 'good' Shepard? Pfft. Forget it.

Modifié par Aurora313, 12 octobre 2013 - 03:58 .

[DeinonSlayer]

shodiswe wrote...

The Quarians probably signed the Treaty of Farixen more than 300 years ago when they were an "associate species", all associate species are required to sign it before joining.

Getting thrown out for breaking laws and causing trouble doesn't nessesarily invalidate treaties signed by their government.

Thing is, in the ANN story referring to the Migrant Fleet arming up, Gerrel says they aren't signatories to it, and haven't been since the Council gave them the boot. The codex, since ME1, has said that almost all Quarian ships were armed for protection against pirate attack anyway - well before the reclamation of Rannoch was even considered a possibility.

What it comes down to is, is a Reaper invasion really the time to be b*tching about people slapping guns on everything they can? I know the first response to that will be that arming themselves "made them a target," but again, this is a reaper invasion. Everyone is a target. Besides, the Geth targeted anything entering their space, regardless of armament or intent, for centuries on end - so what's the difference?

There was a very short list of groups who took steps to prepare for the Reaper invasion. From ME2, we know the Migrant Fleet was one of very few factions (the others being the Rachni, the Shadow Broker, Wrex's Krogan, and the Geth) who acknowledged the Reaper threat before they showed up and kicked the galaxy's ass. Udina orders that all human civilian ships be armed after it started, and I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 octobre 2013 - 03:58 .

[eye basher]

Why because paragon shepard is a white hat.

[Baihu1983]

KaiserShep wrote...

Renegade =/= immoral. I can simply be a matter of being more aggressive, when in the end, the result is pretty much the same. Take setting the leader of clan Weyrloc on fire. It was pretty obvious, from all his hilarious spewing of the terrible things he plans to do once the genophage is cured, that there's not going to be a reason-with-him option, so screw it. His ass gets to die first.

Yoyu can toast him...or shoot him how ever many times it takes to kill him but the result of that meeting is always the same.