congokong wrote...
Or that Wrex's replacement is a tyrant? Why couldn't Wrex act more like Wreav and vice versa? The game is screaming "This is what you get for killing Wrex!" I actually prefer Wreav for the story but that's beside the point.
Bob from Accounting wrote...
That's kind of a skewed example. I would look down on someone who only watched Fox News because Fox News is moronic. But I wouldn't have a problem at all with someone who only watched some hypothetical high-quality news network and didn't bother with any of the major news networks at all.
congokong wrote...
Barquiel wrote...
congokong wrote...
I agree completely. I've mentioned on these boards how the most obvious paragon punishment was an e-mail about Ranos Thanoptis killing some asari which does nothing to your assets (which mean very little anyway). Some paragon options are sooo stupid to me but they never screw you over.
Where are Renegades punished, specifically? Renegade Shepards kills (or punches^^) people left and right yet never suffers a comeuppance for her/his actions. And renegades don't have a monopoly on pragamatic decisions either.
As for the war assets, it evens out most of the time. Sometimes renegades get a few more points (genophage cure, Destiny Ascension, collector base), other decisions are rather pro-paragon (Shiala, the rachni queen)
How about the whole rachni situation?
Or the lost assets and hostility for not saving the council?
Or the lost spectre status in ME2 for picking Udina?
Or that Wrex's replacement is a tyrant? Why couldn't Wrex act more like Wreav and vice versa? The game is screaming "This is what you get for killing Wrex!" I actually prefer Wreav for the story but that's beside the point.
Or that you can't even get the geth/quarian peace because you gave Legion to Cerberus?
Or all the squadmates who die for being renegade (Wrex, the entire Cerberus crew, Legion, Samara, Miranda, VS)? Paragon saves them all.
Things are much rosier in the ME universe if you're a paragon. And why wouldn't they be? You can have your cake and eat it too and it always works out. You're the white knight who never makes what turns out to be a bad call. Renegades play it safe even if it means getting judged for it which is what happens more often than not in the real world because we cannot meta-game the real world. Hell, your reputation emphasizes this. War hero is a black/white amazing background that puts you on a pedestal. Ruthless on the other hand puts you in a gray light where people judge you.
Modifié par Barquiel, 24 février 2014 - 06:19 .
Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 06:23 .
No. What they mean by that is people who seek only to reinforce what they already believe.Bob from Accounting wrote...
Err...don't they?
AlanC9 wrote...
congokong wrote...
Or that Wrex's replacement is a tyrant? Why couldn't Wrex act more like Wreav and vice versa? The game is screaming "This is what you get for killing Wrex!" I actually prefer Wreav for the story but that's beside the point.
I don't believe killing Wrex is properly part of a paragon/renegade discussion. It's not a P/R choice in the first place; the question is whether you've either taken a lot of dialogue skill points or done his pesonal mission.
For you maybe. I find CNN and MSNBC to be, what's the word you used, moronicBob from Accounting wrote...
Yeah, by presenting incredibly low-quality information and arguments.
Fox is very often only able to be as conservative as it is because the points it presents are profoundly stupid. If they argued intelligently, they would often be forced to admit their points don't have merit at all.
So their brand of conservative is often dependant on being low quality.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 février 2014 - 06:25 .
He certainly isn't an alien boot-licker, he simply acknowledges the need to work with aliens when it is in humanity's best interest. He is known to often push against the council is he believes that humanity's position is in jeopardy (it's in the news reports in ME2).congokong wrote...
Bad King wrote...
The council were completely against Shepard travelling to Ilos, so Udina was in a pretty bad situation - does he (as humanity's representative on the Citadel no less) allow Shepard (who completely lacks concrete evidence that the reapers are real) to go free and invoke the wrath of the council (not just on him and the human politicians but on humanity as a whole) or does he ground the Normandy and keep humanity in the Council's good books? The latter seems like the rational option to me.
As for your other issues, most of them are with his abrasive personality - he was the one who pushed for Shepard becoming a spectre and he was the one who rooted for Shepard on the Citadel in ME1 - who cares if he hurts your player's feelings a little if he's getting things done? As for his acts in ME2, I also view them as justifiable to a degree - if you let the council die in ME1, the alien councillors are somewhat anti-humanity and Shepard was working for Cerberus. If Udina had given Shepard his blessings at that time, it would have been a slap in the face to the other council races and may have jeopardised the relations between humans and the other council races. If you picked him and saved the council, when the council are stonewalling Shepard, Anderson himself declares that Udina wouldn't stand for this (he clearly has faith in Udina at this time) and if the meeting goes well, Udina, though unhappy he wasn't consulted, admits that the meeting was a good thing.
Yes, Udina wasn't a friendly chap, but he was a good man at heart who cared about humanity and its relationship with the other races. ME3 did well with him at the start of the game but completely ruined him later on just to appease the haters.
Udina isn't much different from Hackett in a way. They'll both betray Shepard because of politics. I don't think compromising the galaxy in ME1 by siding with the council and grounding the Normandy is very wise but whatever. You make Udina sound like an alien boot-licker and from what you've said he probably is. I can't argue with you much here. Whether that's right is subjective. Since I know Shepard's right it makes you as the role-player kind of loathe Udina for getting in Shepard's way.
Udina didn't defend my canon Shepard's spectre candidacy (she was colonist/ruthless). Both Hackett and Udina spoke against it. Only Anderson vouched for her and Udina conceded that he'd "make the call."
Bob from Accounting wrote...
That's kind of a skewed example. I would look down on someone who only watched Fox News because Fox News is moronic. But I wouldn't have a problem at all with someone who only watched some hypothetical high-quality news network and didn't bother with any of the major news networks at all.
Barquiel wrote...
How does killing the rachni backfire? Killing Wrex is not a renegade option. You can use intimidation to get him under control, which falls under renegade (the VS too). Picking Udina isn't a renegade choice either (and your spectre status is kind of pointless anyway). Even a pure renegade can save all the people you listed (unless you chose Morinth over Samara, of course). I give you Legion. Selling him does indeed backfire if you want to make peace.
The point is, there are some situations where playing renegade nets you more war assets. And there are some situations where playing paragon nets you more war assets (...but I wouldn't call this "punishment". It's really easy to get 3100 war asset points, even without multiplayer and DLC).
Modifié par congokong, 24 février 2014 - 06:32 .
And... the notion that a specific individual, who wasn't even born at the time of the wars, will by necessity be as aggressive as they were in the past, purely because of their species, doesn't strike you as being a little, well, stupid itself? You simply have no information upon which to judge the queen, apart from garbled, one-sided memories of an old war where the two sides were literally unable to communicate with each other. This is not a decision that requires metagaming, only a desire to not commit genocide based on speciesist paranoia.But if a gamer is role-playing then there's no reason to believe the rachni queen isn't like all the millions of others encountered in the galaxy. And the fact that its children on Noveria acted just like the ones in the history books didn't help her case. The rachni weren't stupid. They were a space-faring species. She's more than capable of saying whatever it took to get out when acid tanks are hanging over her head. And if that mercy meant another rachni war...? Oops? There's no logical reason to offer the rachni real sympathy (much like the krogan) so they turn to emotion to manipulate the gamer's decisions. And emotion is a very powerful manipulator. It can make someone make very stupid decisions.
And if that's the case, there's literally no reason as to why Sovereign would reanimate Saren; all it'd have to do is wait. The notion that it was only a temporary stall introduces an enormous plothole and makes Sovereign the victim primarily of its own stupidity. Additionally, the game doesn't tell you that it jeopardizes destroying Saren, just one party member, who's rebutted by the other.I'm getting so tired of arguing about the Battle of the Citadel. Saren had already programmed the arms to open. Vigil's data file stalled it. That's all. Sovereign was glued to the Citadel to override it. That meant taking it down ASAP once they have a shot with everything they had and Shepard didn't know what was going on outside of the council chambers; nor did Shepard know Sovereign would make some Saren-husk to ensure the game has a boss fight. If saving the council jeopardized stopping Sovereign at all (which the game clearly states is the case) then saving the council is stupid.
We actually don't know that about Balak, as he wasn't even in command of the Terra Nova mission originally; he sort of just waltzed in and took it over. I was actually surprised by his still being a military officer in ME3 and thought he was just a random maverick in ME1, which informed my decision-making. As for Vido, his influence is the Blue Suns, and he's not even their titular leader; he gives orders to the visible head of the group, but there's no reason to believe that the batarian is incapable of running it on his own, especially since so few people knew about Vido, so there wouldn't even be a power struggle.These are all assumptions validated by meta-gaming. We know people like Balak and Vido are very dangerous and have a lot of influence. That's a very bad combination. The batarian who replaces Balak in ME3 referred to Balak as the batarians' "greatest agent." The game conveniently doesn't inform you that Balak has killed more people; maybe wiping out a colony or that Vido has enslaved/killed more workers if you let them go. Out of sight; out of mind. Paragon FTW.
Modifié par Xilizhra, 24 février 2014 - 06:35 .
Well, I think it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of fiction, or at least popular fiction doesn't verge into even remotely controversal themes or morals at all. Nearly all of it is stuff we all agree with - friends are good, love is good, don't kill people, don't be corrupt, be brave, be compassionate. So it's not like someone would turn their nose up at anything but a tiny fraction of fiction.osbornep wrote...
Bob from Accounting wrote...
That's kind of a skewed example. I would look down on someone who only watched Fox News because Fox News is moronic. But I wouldn't have a problem at all with someone who only watched some hypothetical high-quality news network and didn't bother with any of the major news networks at all.
Perhaps, but I don't see how that addresses my other examples, or the larger point I was trying to make (i.e. that you shouldn't only pursue works you think are likely to present a viewpoint consistent with your own). It's also worth asking: Does the person in question watch this hypothetical news channel because it's high quality, or because he knows he'll agree with everything they say? The latter is still problematic.
Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 06:46 .
Xilizhra wrote...
And... the notion that a specific individual, who wasn't even born at the time of the wars, will by necessity be as aggressive as they were in the past, purely because of their species, doesn't strike you as being a little, well, stupid itself? You simply have no information upon which to judge the queen, apart from garbled, one-sided memories of an old war where the two sides were literally unable to communicate with each other. This is not a decision that requires metagaming, only a desire to not commit genocide based on speciesist paranoia.
Xilizhra wrote...
And if that's the case, there's literally no reason as to why Sovereign would reanimate Saren; all it'd have to do is wait. The notion that it was only a temporary stall introduces an enormous plothole and makes Sovereign the victim primarily of its own stupidity. Additionally, the game doesn't tell you that it jeopardizes destroying Saren, just one party member, who's rebutted by the other.
Xilizhra wrote...
We actually don't know that about Balak, as he wasn't even in command of the Terra Nova mission originally; he sort of just waltzed in and took it over. I was actually surprised by his still being a military officer in ME3 and thought he was just a random maverick in ME1, which informed my decision-making. As for Vido, his influence is the Blue Suns, and he's not even their titular leader; he gives orders to the visible head of the group, but there's no reason to believe that the batarian is incapable of running it on his own, especially since so few people knew about Vido, so there wouldn't even be a power struggle.
Also, what evidence do you have that Balak killed anyone else at all between ME1 and ME3?
Modifié par congokong, 24 février 2014 - 06:48 .
What, the completely deranged ones she actually asks you to kill? A notion which that one BH scientist independently confirms?No information? How about all the rachni you've had to kill just to reach the queen? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said by killing it you're assuming it's hostile. The point is that it's too big of a risk to take.
Um, what? Neither of them is present in the final battle.You forgot Anderson and Udina who say the same thing at the end. The squadmember is the messenger to emphasize the player's choice beforehand.
What we know is that the file would temporarily lock out Saren... but Saren's dead and can't fiddle with it anymore. He was necessary to work the computers to get Sovereign to interface with the mass relay controls.Maybe there's a plothole but I'm judging the decision based on what we know at the time. Maybe Sovereign was already weakening from the Alliance pounding it and the Saren-husk was some last ditch effort to kill Shepard so it could then remove Vigil's data file to speed up the return of the reapers.
I certainly see no evidence that he did, or evidence that he was officially backed by anything; his other soldiers were terrified of him, had no idea he was coming, and just wanted out. And Vido's the boss of a gang that won't collapse just because he's killed, and we already know his replacement would be no better; he comes up in the codex.You really believe Balak hasn't killed anyone else if freed in ME1? What I know about Balak and Vido is what I see at the time. They're evil leaders with a lot of influence. Sure they could be replaced with someone just as bad... or not. But that's like saying why bother taking down Osama Bin Laden? If 3 civilians were the price to stop Osama the U.S. would've jumped on it without hesitation.
congokong wrote...
Killing the rachni backfires because you lose those assets and you're faced with the breeder. And being renegade has you release it further depleting your assets. It's a renegade decision that backfires; precisely what paragon is lacking and what everyone on this thread is talking about.
Killing Wrex is renegade. It gets you 25 renegade points and he'll die even if you did his armor quest if you pick renegade responses beforehand and don't have enough persuasion to keep him alive.
Udina is the bottom option; hence renegade as I saw it.
A pure renegade chooses Morinth over Samara and even if they don't they have to use a paragon interrupt to stop Samara from killing herself. Both are paragon decisions.
All those characters listed require paragon choices to save them. Miranda for example will die if you choose the renegade option to not give her Alliance resources because she's being so damn secretitve. The odds of being able to talk the VS down are decreased if you are renegade with them beforehand. It's still possible but less likely. There's a point system for it.
Modifié par Barquiel, 24 février 2014 - 07:00 .
Xilizhra wrote...
What, the completely deranged ones she actually asks you to kill? A notion which that one BH scientist independently confirms?
Xilizhra wrote...
Um, what? Neither of them is present in the final battle.
independently confirms?
Xilizhra wrote...
What we know is that the file would temporarily lock out Saren... but Saren's dead and can't fiddle with it anymore. He was necessary to work the computers to get Sovereign to interface with the mass relay controls.
And even if you don't accept that, given the very long ranges that dreadnaughts can fire at, keeping the DA intact could very well prove useful for attacking Sovereign itself, not to mention clearing out the geth ships firing at it before they can turn around and attack the Alliance fleet from behind if the Alliance fleet ignores them.
independently confirms?
Xilizhra wrote...
I certainly see no evidence that he did, or evidence that he was officially backed by anything; his other soldiers were terrified of him, had no idea he was coming, and just wanted out. And Vido's the boss of a gang that won't collapse just because he's killed, and we already know his replacement would be no better; he comes up in the codex.
On the final note, I do think that the hostage situation was overpersonalized, and their numbers should probably have been increased to, say, three hundred, possibly.
All of Liara's scenes in ME1 should not go unmentioned
in me3 if you've let balak go during me1 he's a petty thief, not a terrorist, at least instead of killing hospital patients he's stealing medical supplies, and instead of destroying a transport of alliance marines he's stealing food. (at least in my playthroughs, that might mean something) honestly I think it's completely out of character. btw, I've had to reinstall me1, and I can't find a place to pick up BDTS, so am I stuck there?
in me3 if you've let balak go during me1 he's a petty thief, not a terrorist, at least instead of killing hospital patients he's stealing medical supplies, and instead of destroying a transport of alliance marines he's stealing food. (at least in my playthroughs, that might mean something) honestly I think it's completely out of character. btw, I've had to reinstall me1, and I can't find a place to pick up BDTS, so am I stuck there?
IIRC he's destroying ships and killing marines if
A. BDtS was not completed
B. he was let go in BDtS
If he was captured, left for dead, or flat out killed then you get the "petty thief" stuff, but its been a while since I let that slime live, much less let him walk out free
it's been a while since I've done bdts, as I said, I had to reinstall me1 and I can't find bringing down the sky.
Retour en haut