117 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

Seboist wrote...

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.

You are right, I should have listened to you. But not because you waltzed down the renegade path. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. I still find your morals and ideals reprehensible. But I will admit that the Cerberus Jugend were all right about BioWare, probably because they f***ed you over first before they moved on to the rest of us.

Seboist wrote...

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

David thinks everyone's assertions are out there. Haven't you paid attention?

[shodiswe]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

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.

I can't recal that ANN story, for some reason others don't seem to share Gerrels view on that.
Gerrel tends to shoot from the hip and do or say what ever commes to his mind. It's probably more like Gerrels opinion than a fact. When Shepard brings up the treaty of Farixen noone claims the Quarians arn't signatories to that Treaty and Shepard would stand out as a complete fool by bringing it up if that wasn't the case.
Gerrels point of view is probably that he doesn't care about treaties signed by long dead people before the Quarians got kicked out of the Citadel embasies for their crimes and causing trouble.
They signed it, it was never revoked or anything, I guess the signatories of the Treaty was the Rannoch planetary leadership, Generals or Admirals or warlords or whatever.

But like you said, I don't think the Galaxy cares that much about the Quarians arming themselves, they might be less happy about the Quarians starting a war with the Geth though when the Galaxy is already getting attacked by the Reapers.
But under the circumstances most peopel doesn't seem to care if the Quarians are arming themselves or if they went extinct, everyone is to worried about their own pending extinction. All the rest of the galaxy want is someone else to throw at the Reapers, Geth or Quarian or both, just please Shepard, throw something at the Reapers! We're dying here! Please help us kill Reapers!
In the aftermath of the Reaper war people might have opinions though, and they will likely warry greatly. I tihnk most opinions will think that it was foolishnes or insanity for the Quarians to go into war in the middle of a Reaper invasion while Millions or Billions were dying.
Just drop them of where ever, a secret location with some water and minerals, preferably some free oxygen aswell but if there is water they will have plenty of oxygen and fuel. Leave some liveships, setup temporary shelters and a few hydrophonics farms. And you're set. Most lifeless rocks would do, less alergy problems that way.
Then save the Galaxy and yourselves from the Reapers. Seems easy enough.

Paragon Tyrant has spoken!  

Modifié par shodiswe, 12 octobre 2013 - 05:52 .

[Sir DeLoria]

shodiswe wrote...]
before the Quarians got kicked out of the Citadel embasies for their crimes and causing trouble.

The Quarians never caused trouble, they lost their embassy because they weren't able to eradicate the AIs they had accidentally created. AIs are against council law.

[AlexMBrennan]

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?

Yes, because the quarians are using their women and children as human shields to force us to side with them in the geth conflict.

[Iakus]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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?

Yes, because the quarians are using their women and children as human shields to force us to side with them in the geth conflict.

Well, technically, they were hoping to curb-stomp the geth and have a homeworld again before anyone noticed they strapped guns onto their schoolbuses.

Edit:  though in the end, Joker had the right idea about that plan

Modifié par iakus, 12 octobre 2013 - 06:20 .

[Sir DeLoria]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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?

Yes, because the quarians are using their women and children as human shields to force us to side with them in the geth conflict.

The women argument is silly, because half the Quarian armed forces are female. But do you think the Geth actually care about killing children? They would've destroyed the liveships one way or the other.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Arcian wrote...

People keep forgetting that being good is not the same thing as being nice.

I reject this explanation.

It may qualify in instances where there truly no better options exist, but that's not the case in the examples I listed.

No good reason exists why Shepard cannot resist the urge to hit a civilian, hold his tongue to set an example, etc. etc.

David7204 wrote...

I wonder. Am I the only person on this forum who realizes the people who rally the loudest against Bioware and the writers 'telling' them what's right and wrong are the people clearly most dependent on it?

A tragic irony. But an inevitable one.

Let's consider an example. There a few 'hardcore,' for lack of a better word, Renegade players on this forum. And they hate aliens. Any time the topic arises, they make clear their support for humanity. For Cerberus. Their distain for the stupid, ugly, aliens. And these same people universally condemn any 'good' choices and the story in general for supporting such 'good' choices.

Why do they do it?

Because BioWare told them to.

Because BioWare told them that Renegade players hate aliens. And they obeyed. Obediently, without question. They want to be 'renegade,' so they did exactly what BioWare told them 'renegade' was. BioWare told them through the story that Renegade players hate aliens, and so that's what they believe.

Suppose for a moment that the issue never came up in the story. That 'aliens vs. humanity' was a never a theme. That humans and aliens were assumed to be an equal terms from the beginning. Or humans and synthetics - it's the exact same phenomanon. Would this forum this filled with people gleefully rallying against synthetics, against aliens? Of course not.

These people - they're lead around on a leash by BioWare. They hate BioWare, but can only speak the words given to them by BioWare. And that put that leash on of their own free will.

Seeing phantom people again are we, David?

These so-called 'hardcore Renegade' players with N@zi attitudes toward aliens do not exist, my dear. At least, not in any more significant a capacity than the N@zi party exists in real life -- a few nuts here and there, but generally nothing to get worked up about. And the select few are typically not regular posters but n00bs with a lifespan of just a few weeks.

Supporting Cerberus is a different matter entirely and you are right that many people here do want that option. However, do not conflate supporting Cerberus with supporting mass xenocide. Afterall, all ME2 Shepards work with aliens. So... no, Bioware did not tell them to hate aliens beyond all of one game. And you're assuming they blindly followed. If that were really such a big issue for them, they would not be here, as ME2 would have pissed them off for lacking those options.

I think BioWare was stupid for ever having a central theme of "humanity v. aliens" at all in ME1. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? "Let's make a plot that requires galactic unity, but let's set aside a morality path that avoids it!" Even without planning the trilogy ahead past ME1, any nitwit should have been able to see what problems that would create. SMH.

Blame BioWare, though, not the players that were lead-on by it.

I can't even figure what this post has anything to do with the subject at hand, other than perhaps seeing this thread as an "attack" on Paragon players and that this is a retaliatory response of your own against big bad Rennorgax0z.

To clarify, it's more of a concern I'm voicing towards BW.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 12 octobre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Arcian]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

People keep forgetting that being good is not the same thing as being nice.

I reject this explanation.

It may qualify in instances where there truly no better options exist, but that's not the case in the examples I listed.

No good reason exists why Shepard cannot resist the urge to hit a civilian, hold his tongue to set an example, etc. etc.

Those are problems of the writing, not the character. You're validating the writing if you're blaming it on the character instead of the writer. Then again, I've pinned you as a fellow who believes the endings were valid, so perhaps it's unlikely we'll see eye to eye on the validity of the rest of the writing.

The bottom line is that people complained that Paragon!Shepard was too meek and saintly in ME1, and that it was hard to take Commander Fred Rogers seriously. BioWare, ever so attentive to fan feedback, gave Paragon!Shepard some bite in ME2 to go with the bark.

Some considered this a good change. Others, like yourself, did not.

Out of curiosity, would you have preferred if Shepard had remained Commander Fred Rogers? Or do you have another, better solution?

[AlexMBrennan]

But do you think the Geth actually care about killing children?

The geth, no - I'm talking about Shepard: the point is that the quarians intentionally put themselves into a position where siding with the geth for reasons of practicality (e.g. we are fighting the reapers... do we really have to blow up the biggest non-Reaper dreadnought around for no good reason?) would result in the extinction of the quarian species. Gerrel does something almost identical during the dreadnought mission (putting the fleet in a position where they would be annihilated unless the other admirals back his plan - given that the other admirals were fine with that and didn't do a thing to remove him from command I'm forced to assume that all quarians support using their civilians as human shields)

[SlottsMachine]

This thread is amusing. On-topic, I don't think ParaShep was ever supposed to be confused with Space Jesus.

[Arcian]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

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.

Burden of proof, how does it work?

The legal, philosophical or scientific kind?

[TheMyron]

Shepard is always the Goodguy, its just a question is if he is a Dick to some or an A-Hole to others.

[Fixers0]

Calling paragon Shepards a tyrants is a disgrace to renegade Shepards

[Reorte]

Arcian wrote...

Those are problems of the writing, not the character. You're validating the writing if you're blaming it on the character instead of the writer.

The character is what's written though, even if that makes the character an inconsistent fool a lot of the time. For example, claim a character is a genius but through bad writing make him be an idiot all the time then that character is an idiot (and the story is probably rubbish).

[Seboist]

Arcian wrote...

Seboist wrote...

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.

You are right, I should have listened to you. But not because you waltzed down the renegade path. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. I still find your morals and ideals reprehensible. But I will admit that the Cerberus Jugend were all right about BioWare, probably because they f***ed you over first before they moved on to the rest of us.

Seboist wrote...

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

David thinks everyone's assertions are out there. Haven't you paid attention?

Dude, we were all screwed from the get-go with the abysmal continuity and their failure to do anything with choices (imported or not) beyond cosmetic fluff. When something like Saints Row The Third handles a collector base-type decision better than ME you know something is wrong. P vs R and Pro/Anti-Cerberus is minor details to that. 

And true about David.

[Seboist]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think BioWare was stupid for ever having a central theme of "humanity v. aliens" at all in ME1. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? "Let's make a plot that requires galactic unity, but let's set aside a morality path that avoids it!" Even without planning the trilogy ahead past ME1, any nitwit should have been able to see what problems that would create. SMH.

It wasn't a clear cut "anti-alien" deal with ME1, it was about humans needing to take charge in order to save the aliens from themselves(as you can see in the Renegade Kaidan romance). That's pretty much what ends up happening anyhow in ME3.

Of course, like with all things politics in ME (lol @the council and Alliance reps in ME3 intro), Bioware isn't too swift in this area with nuance or depth.

[Prince Keldar]

I think people are misunderstanding the word "Paragon."

A Paragon is not an individual that only does good things such as a Paladin (though they certainly could be). Instead a synonym of Paragon is a role model. I think that Shepard could be considered a Paragon of Justice if you will. Shepard always tries to do the right thing, protects those that cannot do so themselves, intimidates those that need to be intimidated, etc.

[DeinonSlayer]

Prince Keldar wrote...

I think people are misunderstanding the word "Paragon."

A Paragon is not an individual that only does good things such as a Paladin (though they certainly could be). Instead a synonym of Paragon is a role model. I think that Shepard could be considered a Paragon of Justice if you will. Shepard always tries to do the right thing, protects those that cannot do so themselves, intimidates those that need to be intimidated, etc.

Justice?

> Enables a vicious warlord to carry out a bloody "retaliation" on a worn-out galaxy after announcing he would do so (Wreav/no Eve)
> Enables a soulless killbot to slaughter 17 million people after it stated it would do so (Geth VI)
> Abandons a teammate to die in a fire instead of releasing him or putting him out of his misery (Zaeed, post-SM)

I could go on, but you see where I'm going. If one lets the wheel control their actions throughout the trilogy, it'll tell them who to trust, who not to trust, who to show leniency to, who to chew out, which laws to care about (and which to break without blinking), etc.

I'd prefer the system be done away with, just to encourage people to think for themselves.

[Xilizhra]

> Enables a vicious warlord to carry out a bloody "retaliation" on a worn-out galaxy after announcing he would do so (Wreav/no Eve)

Question: do you actually get Paragon points by doing so? Additionally, it's not a situation that a wholly Paragon Shepard would have even gotten into.

> Enables a soulless killbot to slaughter 17 million people after it stated it would do so (Geth VI)

First, "soulless" is an idiotic thing to bring into the argument as if geth souls were somehow less provable than quarian souls. Second, 17 million casualties is lower than the number of casualties there would be if the quarians wiped out the geth. And third, I'm almost certain you don't get Paragon points for that.

> Abandons a teammate to die in a fire instead of releasing him or putting him out of his misery (Zaeed, post-SM)

That's the Renegade option in that dialogue!

I could go on, but you see where I'm going. If one lets the wheel control their actions throughout the trilogy, it'll tell them who to trust, who not to trust, who to show leniency to, who to chew out, which laws to care about (and which to break without blinking), etc.

And by and large, it's correct.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

> Enables a vicious warlord to carry out a bloody "retaliation" on a worn-out galaxy after announcing he would do so (Wreav/no Eve)

Question: do you actually get Paragon points by doing so? Additionally, it's not a situation that a wholly Paragon Shepard would have even gotten into.

It is in a non-import (or non-completionist) playthrough.

And yeah, you get 15 paragon points for blabbing in the truck (you can imagine Wreav's response), after which it's impossible to sabotage the cure.

> Enables a soulless killbot to slaughter 17 million people after it stated it would do so (Geth VI)

First, "soulless" is an idiotic thing to bring into the argument as if geth souls were somehow less provable than quarian souls. Second, 17 million casualties is lower than the number of casualties there would be if the quarians wiped out the geth. And third, I'm almost certain you don't get Paragon points for that.

By "soulless," I mean it's completely remorseless, be it about killing innocent people or siding with the Reapers. I could go into all the problems with it, but we don't need another one of those threads.

You don't get points for it, but it's still at the top of the wheel (and many people choose it for that reason alone - again, peace is impossible in non-import playthroughs). We could argue all day about the nature of Geth sapience re: individual runtimes pre-upgrade being on-par with a worker ant. It does nothing to change the situation.

> Abandons a teammate to die in a fire instead of releasing him or putting him out of his misery (Zaeed, post-SM)

That's the Renegade option in that dialogue!

Nope. That's the Charm option, post-Suicide Mission. Charm only makes you stick a gun in his face and heft him to his feet if you do his loyalty mission before that.

I could go on, but you see where I'm going. If one lets the wheel control their actions throughout the trilogy, it'll tell them who to trust, who not to trust, who to show leniency to, who to chew out, which laws to care about (and which to break without blinking), etc.

And by and large, it's correct.

For you, perhaps.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 13 octobre 2013 - 05:52 .

[shodiswe]

Necanor wrote...

shodiswe wrote...]
before the Quarians got kicked out of the Citadel embasies for their crimes and causing trouble.

The Quarians never caused trouble, they lost their embassy because they weren't able to eradicate the AIs they had accidentally created. AIs are against council law.

And you don't call that causing trouble? I don't think AI should be created once they exist then that's another issue.
Creating life is a huge responsibility.
Just because it was wrong to create them, doesn't mean it was right to try to destroy them.
They broke laws in doing so and caused trouble by creating an armed conflict with another sentient species resulting in centuries of distrust and tension.

But then again, I guess it made the universe more interesting.

Modifié par shodiswe, 13 octobre 2013 - 05:52 .

[Xilizhra]

It is in a non-import playthrough.

A non-import playthrough doesn't mean that the events of the previous games didn't happen, just that Shepard handled them badly and did not become Paragon until ME3.

By "soulless," I mean it's completely remorseless, be it about killing innocent people or siding with the Reapers. I could go into all the problems with it, but we don't need another one of those threads.

None of that has anything to do with a soul, so stop making false conflations.

You don't get points for it, but it's still at the top of the wheel (and many people choose it for that reason alone - again, penon-import playthroughs). We could argue all day about the nature of Geth sapience re: individual runtimes pre-upgrade being on-par with a worker ant. It does nothing to change the situation.

Then it's a problem of UI design, not morality.

Nope. That's the Charm option, post-Suicide Mission.

1:15.

[RatThing]

A pure paragon can still end up getting Wreav by not being able to talk down Wrex or by not recruiting him. It's stupid anyways. So because you killed one Krogan who btw. threatened your life you doom the Krogan race?

[Xilizhra]

RatThing wrote...

A pure paragon can still end up getting Wreav by not being able to talk down Wrex or by not recruiting him. It's stupid anyways. So because you killed one Krogan who btw. threatened your life you doom the Krogan race?

They, however, will have Eve alive regardless.