117 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Most people don't import, top of the wheel tells them to tell Wreav. Game, set, match.

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.

Are you really gonna be this anal about the terminology? Synonyms: heartless, cold, callous, cruel - take your pick.

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.

I've said before it would have been appropriate to arrange the wheel as shown below, and not to mince words over exactly what the action (upload, stop the upload) entailed.

[Warn the fleet]  [Rally the fleet]
                          \\   /
                           O
                          /   \\
   [Kill the Geth]    [Kill the Quarians]

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

1:15.

See the wikia. It changes after the suicide mission.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 13 octobre 2013 - 06:15 .

[RatThing]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

If they do Mordins loyalty mission.

[Xilizhra]

Most people don't import, top of the wheel tells them to tell Wreav. Game, set, match.

And most people are not playing fully Paragon Shepards, but failShepards.

Are you really gonna be this anal about the terminology? Synonyms: heartless, cold, callous, cruel - take your pick.

I might not have if the "do geth have a soul" thing wasn't an actual plot point.

I've said before it would have been appropriate to arrange the wheel as shown below, and not to mince words over exactly what the action (upload, stop the upload) entailed.

I think the reason it wasn't arranged like that is because persuade options are always on the left.

See the wikia. It changes after the suicide mission.

The wiki is blatantly wrong. Check the video description that says the suicide mission was already finished. If you still think otherwise, show me a screenshot/video saying so.

You'll also note that having Zaeed burn cannot succeed until after the suicide mission.

If they do Mordins loyalty mission.

You can't call out the Paragon meter for your own failures to actually complete missions.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 octobre 2013 - 06:20 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Most people don't import, top of the wheel tells them to tell Wreav. Game, set, match.

And most people are not playing fully Paragon Shepards, but failShepards.

A fully paragon Shepard starting in ME3 will enable Wreav to carry out a bloody campaign of conquest on a galaxy already worn out by fighting the reapers, after Wreav announces his intent to do so. You can dodge it all you like, but that's simply the fact of the situation.

I've said before it would have been appropriate to arrange the wheel as shown below, and not to mince words over exactly what the action (upload, stop the upload) entailed.

I think the reason it wasn't arranged like that is because persuade options are always on the left.

On Menae, you choose between James and Liara to fix the comm tower. Both options are on the bottom of the wheel. Charming TIM on Thessia ("I trusted you") earns Renegade points, Intimidating him earns Paragon points. Nothing is set in stone.

See the wikia. It changes after the suicide mission.

The wiki is blatantly wrong. Check the video description that says the suicide mission was already finished. If you still think otherwise, show me a screenshot/video saying so.

You'll also note that having Zaeed burn cannot succeed until after the suicide mission.

I've read that that's what Charm does post-SM (in several places) but haven't played it that way myself. Not motivated to do an entire ME2 playthrough to confirm it either way. I'll concede the point for now.

[RatThing]

If there are evil collectors out there who abduct colonists there might be actually a good reason not to "complete missions" before you took care of this sh*t (from a roleplay position) even if it's not compatible with the Paragon meter.

[Xilizhra]

A fully paragon Shepard starting in ME3 will enable Wreav to carry out a bloody campaign of conquest on a galaxy already worn out by fighting the reapers, after Wreav announces his intent to do so. You can dodge it all you like, but that's simply the fact of the situation.

And that is a lie. That Shepard is not fully Paragon, but only trying to be far too late.

On Menae, you choose between James and Liara to fix the comm tower. Both options are on the bottom of the wheel. Charming TIM on Thessia ("I trusted you") earns Renegade points, Intimidating him earns Paragon points. Nothing is set in stone.

Charm and Intimidate stopped being things after ME1. They're just blue and red options now, regardless of what they say.

If there are evil collectors out there who abduct colonists there might be actually a good reason not to "complete missions" before you took care of this sh*t (from a roleplay position) even if it's not compatible with the Paragon meter.

Then fantastically, you can do so after the suicide mission.

[Sir DeLoria]

People, please, the Rannoch decision is not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is stupid.

[RatThing]

Xilizhra wrote...

If there are evil collectors out there who abduct colonists there might be actually a good reason not to "complete missions" before you took care of this sh*t (from a roleplay position) even if it's not compatible with the Paragon meter.

Then fantastically, you can do so after the suicide mission.

And what happens with unlyoal squadmates on the suicide mission?

Necanor wrote...
People, please, the Rannoch decision is
not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade
points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is
stupid.

I don't think the placement was a coincidense. The whole arch was biased IMO, points or no points. And if you play paragon for the first time you wouldn't know if you get points or not,  you'd pick upper left.  

Modifié par RatThing, 13 octobre 2013 - 07:04 .

[Xilizhra]

RatThing wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If there are evil collectors out there who abduct colonists there might be actually a good reason not to "complete missions" before you took care of this sh*t (from a roleplay position) even if it's not compatible with the Paragon meter.

Then fantastically, you can do so after the suicide mission.

And what happens with unlyoal squadmates on the suicide mission?

Don't put them in dangerous spots.

[RatThing]

If what I said applies to one loyalty mission it would apply to all of them of course.

[Sir DeLoria]

RatThing wrote...

Necanor wrote...
People, please, the Rannoch decision is
not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade
points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is
stupid.

I don't think the placement was a coincidense. The whole arch was biased IMO, points or no points. And if you play paragon for the first time you wouldn't know if you get points or not,  you'd pick upper left.  

Agreed:unsure:

[Xilizhra]

Necanor wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Necanor wrote...
People, please, the Rannoch decision is
not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade
points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is
stupid.

I don't think the placement was a coincidense. The whole arch was biased IMO, points or no points. And if you play paragon for the first time you wouldn't know if you get points or not,  you'd pick upper left.  

Agreed:unsure:

The arc's not unduly biased. What are you on about?

[RatThing]

Necanor wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Necanor wrote...
People, please, the Rannoch decision is
not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade
points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is
stupid.

I don't think the placement was a coincidense. The whole arch was biased IMO, points or no points. And if you play paragon for the first time you wouldn't know if you get points or not,  you'd pick upper left.  

Agreed:unsure:

It's a reminder that you should always trust your own moral compass over that of a roleplay game.

[Sir DeLoria]

Xilizhra wrote...

The arc's not unduly biased. What are you on about?

That arc contradicts almost everything we learn about the war in ME1. Are the Geth attrocities ever even mentioned? Nope. 

The Quarians aren't siants, but neither are the Geth. Both sides have done wrong and while the Quarian mistakes are openly shown, the mistakes of the Geth aren't even in the slightest.

[Xilizhra]

Necanor wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The arc's not unduly biased. What are you on about?

That arc contradicts almost everything we learn about the war in ME1. Are the Geth attrocities ever even mentioned? Nope. 

The Quarians aren't siants, but neither are the Geth. Both sides have done wrong and while the Quarian mistakes are openly shown, the mistakes of the Geth aren't even in the slightest.

Um, I think the Morning War was in fact mentioned in ME3. And we had no firsthand information on the war in ME1, whereas we do in 3.

[Darth Krytie]

Xilizhra wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The arc's not unduly biased. What are you on about?

That arc contradicts almost everything we learn about the war in ME1. Are the Geth attrocities ever even mentioned? Nope. 

The Quarians aren't siants, but neither are the Geth. Both sides have done wrong and while the Quarian mistakes are openly shown, the mistakes of the Geth aren't even in the slightest.

Um, I think the Morning War was in fact mentioned in ME3. And we had no firsthand information on the war in ME1, whereas we do in 3.

If you actually complete all of Legion's dialogues in ME2, you actually learn quite a bit about the conflict with the quarians and the geth.  So, it's not like ME3's stuff came out of no where.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Necanor wrote...

RatThing wrote...

Necanor wrote...
People, please, the Rannoch decision is
not based on morals and is entirely indipendent from Paragon/Renegade
points. I agree though, the placement on the dialogue wheel is
stupid.

I don't think the placement was a coincidense. The whole arch was biased IMO, points or no points. And if you play paragon for the first time you wouldn't know if you get points or not,  you'd pick upper left.  

Agreed:unsure:

The arc's not unduly biased. What are you on about?

I should think you've participated in this debate enough times to be aware of the general complaints, Xil. Same goes for Necanor - Xil's heard it, even if she's playing dumb, no need to restate it. Let's not derail the thread.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 13 octobre 2013 - 07:53 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

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. 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.

Insofar as "valid" means "passable" ... and the ending you're referring to is post-EC... then YES, you are right.

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?

My issues with this thing are two-fold...


1.) Inconsistency: we should know what we get out of this and that morality path off of the dialogue-wheel. It should be static, not dynamic. It's the player's job to mix it up with the options he/she is given. I was not aware people were complaing that ME1 ParaShep is too saintly or meerk, but IMO, the problem was them... for playing pure Paragon.

That problem is compounded by ME2's morality system just about forcing players to RP that way.

Again, though, we should know what to expect from [x] and [y] and then mix it up to our liking. They shouldn't be doing that for us. As is, it feels like red and blue have a bit of bipolar disorder going on.


2.) Message: it's plain to see that the Paragon path plays to the most "heroic" archetype for the protagonist, so a lot of people see it as a "good" path. That's okay, to some extent. I think there are some values we can all agree are good.

However, there is a fine line between an idealist and an idealogue. ParaShep crosses that line when he/she enforces his morals with intimidation and violence, and it's not seen as a bad thing when it happens either.

Posting on this board has also made me think a little, because I've seen more than a few posters who call themselves Paragon and are very intolerant in their beliefs -- like they are right and there is no question about it.

I find that mindset flatly reprehensible. Those people can feel themselves justified in anything -- even thuggery!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 octobre 2013 - 07:56 .