188 réponses à ce sujet

[Agamo45]

EDIT: Nevermind. I misread.

Modifié par Agamo45, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:29 .

[DeathCultArm]

That's why there basically no reason to care which side you choose. If you deiced to kill everyone istead of talking it out everyting ended the same, anyway. There was no need to think any of the choices out...when the end result was already a given.

[vallix]

ShadowAldrius wrote...

Putting myself in Shepards shoes, do I really want to allow this queen to live, and risk yet another similar outbreak in the future? Innocent people died because of the Rachni queen, even if she didn't directly take part in the killings.

She had absolutely nothing to do with it. Her children were stolen from her and she was experimented on. She isn't complicit in those deaths at all.

Now does that mean she wouldn't be killing people in the future? No way. But in this case, she was completely guiltless. Killing her is a preventative measure, nothing more.

Anyway, Paragon isn't about 'being nice' anymore than being renegade is about 'being cruel'. Being compassionate is one aspect of being a paragon, being an amoral, egotistical, trigger-happy human being is one aspect of being a renegade. There's more to it, to both of them.

And how many people do you spare out of pity...? Most of them get arrested or end up dead anyway. Usually both renegade and paragon decisions are resolved in about the same way. Charm and Intimidate are the things that unlock extra content, or resolve situations in a more agreeable fashion.

You said she had nothing to do with it, then you go on to say "her" children were stolen from her. As I said, even if she didn't partake in the killings herself, it was because of her that the killings were possible. You disagree?

Modifié par vallix, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:31 .

[creininger]

LucidStrike wrote...

I'm opposed to developer (read: divine) intervention, which is what the scars seem like, but I like to think that being an ***hole has its consequences. Sure, the world's run by murderous, rich, racist, sexist, homophobic, immoral "Renegades", but they'll burn, either from self-immolation in regret or the molotovs of outraged masses.

Paragon choices tend to be about short-term sacrifices for long-term benefits.

Renegade in ME is the definition of short term sacrifices. The quickest example to come to mind is sacrificing the few for the many. Saren, before he got Indoctrinated, was a Renegade. though, I think it was something of a fail on the developement side for Shepard to hear only Anderson's side of the story. If Paragons went with short term sacrifices, then that would mean the Paragon player would have to sacrifice the civvies in BDtS, and abandon the Ascention in the end battle. Obviously, those choices earned you Renegade points.

[Monster A-Go Go]

LucidStrike wrote...

Eccentrick79 wrote...

I think being a Paragon on some of the big decisions should come back and bite you.

Should or could?

Should. 

I'm not saying it should be forced, but that it should be a natural offshoot of the story.  In some cases this is easy -- the Rachni Queen was a liar or fell back under the influence of the yellow note.  Or Balak went free and destroyed three human colonies while you were dead -- these are choice that could go either way, and are believable to come back and bite you on the kiester. 

Decisions like killing the Feros colonists, on the other hand, should always be detrimental to a Renegade player.  I mean...what?  Hana Murakami was carrying a Thorian seedling and because you didn't kill her, suddenly Eden Prime is comprised of Creepers?  

Overall, it should be give and take.  The sweetie-pie answer shouldn't always be the right path, and neither should the two-degrees-from-Satan option.  I want all my Shepards to regret some of the decisions they had to make for the sake of the universe. 

[vallix]

Eccentrick79 wrote...

LucidStrike wrote...

Eccentrick79 wrote...

I think being a Paragon on some of the big decisions should come back and bite you.

Should or could?

Should. 

I'm not saying it should be forced, but that it should be a natural offshoot of the story.  In some cases this is easy -- the Rachni Queen was a liar or fell back under the influence of the yellow note.  Or Balak went free and destroyed three human colonies while you were dead -- these are choice that could go either way, and are believable to come back and bite you on the kiester. 

Decisions like killing the Feros colonists, on the other hand, should always be detrimental to a Renegade player.  I mean...what?  Hana Murakami was carrying a Thorian seedling and because you didn't kill her, suddenly Eden Prime is comprised of Creepers?  

Overall, it should be give and take.  The sweetie-pie answer shouldn't always be the right path, and neither should the two-degrees-from-Satan option.  I want all my Shepards to regret some of the decisions they had to make for the sake of the universe. 

This post pretty much sums up exactly what I want from the game.

[ShadowAldrius]

vallix wrote...

You said she had nothing to do with it, then you go on to say "her" children were stolen from her. As I said, even if she didn't partake in the killings herself, it was because of her that the killings were possible. You disagree?

Saying "it was because of her that the killings were possible" is a huge misnomer.

The lion's share of the blame goes to Sovereign, Saren and Binary Helix. Sentient beings shouldn't be blamed for simply existing.

I'm not saying it should be forced, but that it should be a natural
offshoot of the story.  In some cases this is easy -- the Rachni Queen
was a liar or fell back under the influence of the yellow note.  Or
Balak went free and destroyed three human colonies while you were dead
-- these are choice that could go either way, and are believable to
come back and bite you on the kiester.

Well, while that may be true, I hope it isn't that straight-forward. I'm hoping there are challenges that arise from sparing the Rachni Queen that aren't just 'oh, she was actually lying to you and she's actually an evil ****'. And more stuff that comes from the complications of reintroducing such a reviled and expansionistic race into the galaxy again. There are more realistic ways of doing that then turning the Rachni Queen into Cthulu.

Modifié par ShadowAldrius, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:39 .

[Marlina]

Hmm, I bet Bioware will make it so that whatever you chose, it'll have both bad and good consequences. I doubt they'll make one choice undeniably superior to another.

Just sayin'...

[LucidStrike]

creininger wrote...

Renegade in ME is the definition of short term sacrifices.

I meant short-term sacrifices FROM Shepherd. Sometmes, a mission is more difficult as a Paragon, like saving all the colonists from the Thorian instead of killing them.

[baardhimself]

yes I agree with the "good" choice shouldn't always be the "good" solution, such as in Army of Two: 2..



SPOILERS;



There is a scene where a guy who helped you escape from Prison is going to rape a woman he has held prisoner in a closet, she is beaten and bloody.. you get the choice.. walk away and do nothing, with a big bag of cash the Russian is bribing you with, or help the woman escape.

The "good" choice is help the woman escape, so you do.. and it turns out the woman is actually a hitman who kills the Russian, and whose next target is a baby who she goes off to kill..



Obviously the morally correct choice turned out to release a horrible person, but there is no indication at the time of the choice this will happen. Sometimes black and white shouldn't always be so black and white.

[LucidStrike]

ShadowAldrius wrote...

vallix wrote...

You said she had nothing to do with it, then you go on to say "her" children were stolen from her. As I said, even if she didn't partake in the killings herself, it was because of her that the killings were possible. You disagree?

Saying "it was because of her that the killings were possible" is a huge misnomer.

The lion's share of the blame goes to Sovereign, Saren and Binary Helix. Sentient beings shouldn't be blamed for simply existing.

Besides, nothing would be possible, were it not for the universe existing. Let's destroy that too. Nuke away.

On a more serious note, would you have the mothers of murders charged with 'Birthing a murderer' and persecuted (allowing for the injustice that is legal judgement)?

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:43 .

[vallix]

ShadowAldrius wrote...

vallix wrote...

You said she had nothing to do with it, then you go on to say "her" children were stolen from her. As I said, even if she didn't partake in the killings herself, it was because of her that the killings were possible. You disagree?

Saying "it was because of her that the killings were possible" is a huge misnomer.

The lion's share of the blame goes to Sovereign, Saren and Binary Helix. Sentient beings shouldn't be blamed for simply existing.

Maybe, but did you forget that the Rachni threatened to overtake the Citadal 2,000 years before the current date in ME1? This was before experiments. I think you should read up on the history of Rachni.

My point is this. The Rachni are a huge threat to the Mass Effect universe. I'm talking everyone, not just humans. They were vicious beasts, although intelligent. I eliminated that threat.  Sure you can call me bad names and point fingers, but there's a reason that option was availible in the game. I'm not asking anyone here to agree with me who doesn't, I'm just asking them to understand my decision.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

On
a more serious note, would you have the mothers of murders charged with
'Birthing a murderer' and persecuted (allowing for the injustice that
is legal judgement)?

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/bandit.png[/smilie]

That's not even being reasonable. I won't bother diving into why that's completely different than taking out the Rachni queen. So you're telling me if you had the chance to take out say, rats, you wouldn't?

Modifié par vallix, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:46 .

[Marlina]

baardhimself wrote...

 Sometimes black and white shouldn't always be so black and white.

It should all be GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! >

Modifié par Marlina, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:44 .

[Monster A-Go Go]

baardhimself wrote...

yes I agree with the "good" choice shouldn't always be the "good" solution, such as in Army of Two: 2..

SPOILERS;

There is a scene where a guy who helped you escape from Prison is going to rape a woman he has held prisoner in a closet, she is beaten and bloody.. you get the choice.. walk away and do nothing, with a big bag of cash the Russian is bribing you with, or help the woman escape.
The "good" choice is help the woman escape, so you do.. and it turns out the woman is actually a hitman who kills the Russian, and whose next target is a baby who she goes off to kill..

Obviously the morally correct choice turned out to release a horrible person, but there is no indication at the time of the choice this will happen. Sometimes black and white shouldn't always be so black and white.

Still, all things being metagamed...save the woman from rape, and then kill her for being a horrible human being.  Then chemically castrate the Russian so he can't be Captain Hormones any more.

[Zulu_DFA]

Marlina wrote...

 Take BDtS. Short term sacrifice for long term goal as renegade, long term sacrifice for short term gain as paragon. 

Good example.

Renegade = sacrifice for the greater good.
Paragon = I do a "morally correct" thing, so that my shiny armor stays shiny at all times, even when galaxy goes to hell because of my inaction.

[Chained_Creator]

I'm still rolling with the original idea of the Spectre as I understand it.

"Go anywhere, do almost anything. Above and beyond galactic authority and law. Report directly to and only to the Council."

To mean that, if someone gets in my way in the execution of my duty to prevent galactic incedents or violations, they are removed. Permanently.

Modifié par Chained_Creator, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:51 .

[Marlina]

Eccentrick79 wrote...

baardhimself wrote...

yes I agree with the "good" choice shouldn't always be the "good" solution, such as in Army of Two: 2..

SPOILERS;

There is a scene where a guy who helped you escape from Prison is going to rape a woman he has held prisoner in a closet, she is beaten and bloody.. you get the choice.. walk away and do nothing, with a big bag of cash the Russian is bribing you with, or help the woman escape.
The "good" choice is help the woman escape, so you do.. and it turns out the woman is actually a hitman who kills the Russian, and whose next target is a baby who she goes off to kill..

Obviously the morally correct choice turned out to release a horrible person, but there is no indication at the time of the choice this will happen. Sometimes black and white shouldn't always be so black and white.

Still, all things being metagamed...save the woman from rape, and then kill her for being a horrible human being.  Then chemically castrate the Russian so he can't be Captain Hormones any more.

 
Then kill the baby for a quick buck! :innocent:

Modifié par Marlina, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:51 .

[LucidStrike]

Marlina wrote...

baardhimself wrote...

 Sometimes black and white shouldn't always be so black and white.

It should all be GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! >

"Everything is not okay! Everything is not alright! Sometimes things that might seem gray turn out to be black and white!" ~The Slack Republic

I think both the 'black/white and the 'gray/grayscale' models are over simpified.

[DeathCultArm]

spectres = jedi/sith

[vallix]

DeathCultArm wrote...

spectres = jedi/sith

Eh, no. Jedi and Sith are the perfect defintion for good and evil. There are Renegade decisions in the game that I consider for the greater good, like taking out the queen for example.

A sith would kill her for shi*ts and giggles.

Modifié par vallix, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:55 .

[Arrtis]

i imagine a lot of paragon choices will have a bad effect.LIke when you get the cerberus data and withhold it from the shadow broker the buyer says his employer will remember this in the future if you ever need his employers services.

[Monster A-Go Go]

Marlina wrote...
Then kill the baby for a quick buck! :innocent:

I likes the way you think, you Norwegian genius, you!

[LucidStrike]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Marlina wrote...

 Take BDtS. Short term sacrifice for long term goal as renegade, long term sacrifice for short term gain as paragon. 

Good example.

Renegade = sacrifice for the greater good.
Paragon = I do a "morally correct" thing, so that my shiny armor stays shiny at all times, even when galaxy goes to hell because of my inaction.

Don't oversimplify. In that situation, it's actually not guaranteed that the Paragon choice will have terrible consequences. Let's not fall into the 'half empty/half full' trap.

Eccentrick79 wrote...

Marlina wrote...
Then kill the baby for a quick buck! ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png

I likes the way you [roleplay], you Norwegian genius, you!

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:57 .

[LucidStrike]

[OOPS]

Modifié par LucidStrike, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:57 .