82 réponses à ce sujet

[Quarian Master Race]

This is not a mistake though. In any given dialogue, renegade depicts the brash action, while paragon stands for the diplomatic/cooperative route.

The system is not intended as "playing it renegade" vs. "playing it paragon" all the way through, at least from what I see. It does not free you of making choices in each dialogue if you want to play a consistent character (if you really want that, that's what action mode is for).

Granted, you don't know exactly what Shep will do in the renegade interrupt but from the cinematic lead-up, you get a pretty good idea. If you are playing an inconsistent character, don't blame the placement of the dialogue options for it.

I disagree. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how the choices are set up in any given moment except perhaps a loose sense of moral relativism and a ham fisted idea of what is "nice" and what is not.

Using the above example, and without any moralizing, how is it more "brash" to play yes man to the Admiralty Board's war plans (renegade) than it is to come in and repeatedly and vehemently shout at and criticize them (paragon)? How is it more brash to empathically agree with (or at least justify) Admiral Gerrel's attack instead of angrily voicing your displeasure at it to Joker?

If the system did not intend for you to be consistent, than it wouldn't reward you for doing so (at least in ME2 or in regards to auto selecting upper left and right being the easiest way to guaruantee success at the game).

[MrFob]

As I said, the paragon choice is leaning towards a more cooperative stance. In the case of the geth-quarian conflict, that means advertising for a peace between the two. And that is consistently done.

And I maintain that the dialogue wheel is not supposed to be defined by paragon/renegade. Choose according to what you want your Shepard to say in each situation, not according to which corner the option is in and it works just fine.

 

I agree on the ME2 issue though. That system was indeed stupid. It's the only instance where I don't mind cheating and just modify my save to give me acces to all options.

[Quarian Master Race]

As I said, the paragon choice is leaning towards a more cooperative stance. 

Which is no doubt consistent with paragons telling the salarians to sod off when offered their help earlier in the game, or "I won't let fear compromise who I am" ing the Illusive man's attempts at cooperation in the 2nd game, simply because such cooperation is acquired and facilitated through subjectively immoral (to paragons) means.

You can advocate cooperation (indeed, you are forced to by bringing Legion/Geth VI on the ship and accepting the Primes as allies in the first place) while still calling for the destruction of the Reaper allied geth faction anyway, right up to the point when you are forced to let them accept the code or kill them. On the flipside, repeatedly arguing with and then icing your quarian allies as soon as they cease to be useful to you as paragons can do isn't exactly cooperative.

The two ends of the scale are both cooperative in differing circumstances depending on their inconsistent and often schizophrenic moral reasoning. Paragon is a vaguely "nice", compassionate outlook and renegade is a vaguely pragmatic, amoral one but neither is consistent.

 

[MrFob]

Yes, it is consistent. You are trying to point out instances where paragon choices do not stand for cooperation with an individual (like paragon is the "yes" option, renegade is the "no" option, which it is not). Instead, it is the larger concept of it that counts. Cerberus, with it's humanity first attitude stands contrary to bigger picture of inter-species cooperation and equality, so the paragon options oppose them. Same goes for the Salarians who try to work for their benefit alone, against the Krogan. Same with the Quarian-Geth issue where you advocate for cooperation between the species.

 

I am not saying the system is perfect or 100% consistent. In fact, as you can read in my first post in this thread I would rather get rid of it altogether. However, I do not think that the usage of the system by the writers who had to work within these constraints was too bad.

[Abelas Forever!]

Except:

1) She is technically not outside the monastary yet.

2) Shepard is kind of in no position to be the executioner here, since that falls under jurisdiktion of the Asari (Samara, who is authorized to make this descision by Asari law, is ok wih Falere staying a the ruins once Falere claims that is her intention, so again it boils down to murder)

3)Assuming that Shepard actually does follow Asari procedures with executing Falere (a huge If, since I doubt that they actually have procedures for the whole monastary blowing up due to a thir party attack and Ardat-Yakshi surviving and surrendering peacefully) State-sanctionized murder is still murder in my eyes. Falere didn't break any law. It's not her fault the monastary blew up and she still tries to abide the law.

Anyways, murderer and it's not like Shepard hasn't most likely done far worse murdering in the past if you play renegade.

1) No but I believe that the monastery as a location isn't enough. There should be someone who keeps eye on Ardat-Yakshi. That's why Samara tries to kill herself. Why would she if her daughter could just stay in the monastery?

2) Shepard is a spectre so he/she has the needed authority.

3) Ardat-Yakshi who don't live in the monastary are exucuted. If you don't have the monastary it doesn't matter if  Falere is innocent. Because Shepard is a spectre he/she is above the law and can use ruthless methods without consequences.

 

Anyway. I think it's best that we agree on disagree.

[Valmar]

 No, no, no. You are not listening, Valmar. Deliberately, I suspect, seeing as many of your responses ignore what I said while bringing up things I already responded to and dismissed (you brought up Shepard's dialogue for sacrificing the Council through the neutral dialogue option, not the Renegade one, which you omitted).

 

Suspect all you want. Am I suppose to have read every post and make notes of every argument you made here? You already dismissed them, well, thats changes everything. /end thread, god has spoken.

 

Also what do you mean I brought up the neutral dialogue? That isn't the renegade dialogue? I was under the impression Shepard saying "I won't sacrifice human lives the save the council" was the renegade choice. I'm fairly sure you're wrong about this. The neutral option has Shepard only arguing to hold off the ships. Yet I'm the one not listening here? How pleasantly classy of you.

 

Renegade:

"Hold off Joker! We're not sacrificing human lives to save the council. Keep our ships back until they can get a shot at Sovereign."

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UYX_klixxIo#t=67

 

Neutral:

"Wait until those arms open Joker. We need all our ships focusing on Soverign. Even if it means sacrificing the council."

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cPjy8xiLoBY#t=73

 

My original quote:

"We're not sacrificing human lives to save the council. Hold our ships back until they can get a shot at sovereign."

Okay, so I wasn't 1:1 perfect when i quoted it. I was paraphrasing off of memory. All things considered I'd say I did a good job. With all due respect, you're wrong here. Nothing was omitted and I did not use the neutral dialogue.

 

I was very clearly using the renegade dialogue, as proven by the supplied links if you don't believe me you're welcome to go watch it yourself. The renegade choice isn't as evil as you paint it to be, Shepard doesn't end the justification of the sacrifice with just "die aliens!" Even the renegade adds the justification of holding the ships back for Sovereign. This is NOT something exclusive to the neutral path.

 

To quote myself again:

"Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment of not wanting to sacrifice human lives for the stuck up council that has shown disdain and disregard for humanity it can still be pointed out that holding ships back to get a shot at sovereign is a tactical decision, even if it is laced with other overtones."

 

 

However, Shepard's stated reasons for doing them are awful, which contributes to the thematic issues with the Renegade path. Shepard is not doing those things for pragmatic reasons, just to be a pr!ck, per his words.

 

Not to say that ALL the reasons given in every single renegade choice is with justification (given, not inferred) but I disagree with the ones you've listed. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

There's a reason why we hear the rachni's plea immediately after learning about the realities of indoctrination from Benezia.
 

 

From a player perspective I agree. It's just a video game story afterall. I was speaking from the perspective of Shepard, the character. From his perspective its all very, very convenient that the rachni queen that is at your mercy is suddenly playing the innocence card. All the more so considering what Benezia just told Shepard the whole "it wasn't me in control of my actions, it was the magical space ship of mind control evil" literally right infront of her. Who's to say the queen didn't pick up on that and decide to use it to her advantage?

 

It's stuff like this that makes me want to ignore the queen and leave the decision to the council to decide rather than making haste decisions on the spur of the moment. It's kind of a big deal one shouldn't just leap to in the course of five minutes. Shepard is a soldier, this is all a lot bigger than him, imo.

 

 

It is, imho, one of the places where awarding P/R points doesn't make a lot of sense, because it assumes a motivation for the choice. Paragon = idealistic, Renegade = pragmatic - but this is one of those places where you can make a 'paragon' choice for purely pragmatic reasons. You mean I can have an entire species owe me their entire existence? A species that shares memories, and isn't going to forget that Shepard, a human, prevented their extinction? Yes, please.
 

 

Well in all fairness a lot of the P/R decisions in the series don't make a ton of sense if you delve into it.

 

Ending the reaper threat was Shepard's #1 priority since ME1. Everything else was just a sidenote or in service to that goal.
 

Harbinger had harrassed Shepard endlessly, the reapers had killed not only billions in the current cycle, but many more in previous cycles. Shepard really ought to take great satisfaction in finally accomplishing that goal.

 

I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a bias here. It's fine to grin about reapers, but grinning at ensuring the species that started a great galactic-scale war that nearly wiped out the council races is not going to be a threat again is somehow inherently evil and wrong, like a sinister mustache-twirling villain. All because the rachni came up with a justification, an excuse, while literally under the mercy of Shepard. In the span of five minutes we forget all that lead up to that moment because of their excuse of innocence. Killing them is so evil and wrong now.

 

Yet the reapers had an excuse they justified themselves with at the last moment as well yet rarely do you see anyone bat an eyelash at destroying them. Most just scoff at their excuse. Yet we're all butterflies and rainbows of caring, compassionate understanding when it comes to the poor rachni that ravaged the galaxy.

 

There's a double standard here. Lol.

 

Aside from shunning greater involvement and integration into greater galactic society, what exactly did they stand for?
 

 

I don't know, I'm not republican.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. According to the guy running to lead the party in the first game, of whom is really our primary source of info given to Shepard, they want to "Stand firm against alien influence."

 

Wiki:

The party was created in response to a genuine concern that humanity's individuality might be diluted or lost after too much integration into alien cultures. The party's manifesto isn't particularly extremist, but they tend to be a magnet for xenophobes and radicals, and the party does nothing to curtail the racist comments of its members, under the pretext that the party will not abridge its members' freedom of speech.

 

We don't know much  more than that. Ashley claims she agrees with the founding ideas of the party, aswell. She just doesn't like how its soaked up a bunch of hateful bigots. I disagree with the Terra Firma party because their views go against mine, not because theres a bunch of nutjobs in their group. Just as I agree with Cerberus' goals despite the organization having bad elements.

 

Even the Professor conceded that Terra Firma had some reasonable goals, the judgement was based on the fact that some of its followers are racist extremists. I won't completely disregard Terra Firma as evil and horrible just because some of its members are horrible people. I might if given more knowledge about it (what we know of the organization is very vague to say the least) but my reasoning will have to be more than just "some of its followers are clowns".
 

 

What did Shiala do, exactly? She'd been somehow consumed by the thorian - and we saw the effects the thorian had on other colonists prior to meeting the original. The ones we fought in the thorian lair were clones. I'm not even sure she had been indoctrinated by Saren - she seemed completely free of that sort of influence once released from the thorian.

 

I'm not judging Shiala for the actions of her clones. That's understandable. The clones are not her, obviously. She was still working with Saren until he decided to sacrifice her. Oh, sorry, she was working with Benezia who was working with Saren. Same difference. She was working with and supporting a mad fugitive of justice that tried to blow up a human colony and just attacked another with his army of machines.

 

I do think she was under the influence of the reapers/Saren, though. She was free of that after being released from the Thorian but that is because the Thorian's control cleansed her of it. In the lore, I believe, she is the only character to actually recover from indoctrination thanks to the Thorian's indoctrination.

 

Shepard doesn't know any of this, though. All he knows at that point is that she was working with the enemy and was betrayed and now she's at the mercy of her formal enemy, Shepard. Of course she's on our side now - her boss stabbed her in the back and now her fate is in our hands. How convenient that she can excuse her actions as being caused by some magical mindcontrol spaceship. I can't imagine that story didn't sound at least a little farfetched at the time. 
 

Agreed, especially after her solemn promise that she would not allow them to make her a banshee. Falere & Rila were obviously very close, and we witnessed Rila's sacrifice - I would expect Falere to do no less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[New Kid]

The only bad thing about renegade Shep in 2/3 is how horribly exaggerated the scars become...

 

I had to facepalm when I saw her eyes turn red. Who made that ridiculous decision??????

 

And on the topic of doing things to be a dickhead: I seem to recall shoving a gun in poor Conrad Verners face in ME1.

[Display Name Owner]

The only bad thing about renegade Shep in 2/3 is how horribly exaggerated the scars become...

 

I had to facepalm when I saw her eyes turn red. Who made that ridiculous decision??????

 

And on the topic of doing things to be a dickhead: I seem to recall shoving a gun in poor Conrad Verners face in ME1.

 

Yeah, lavaface is pretty horrible to look at, and not in the cool way. If Shep ever gets that far I just repair the scars, but I do quite like the mid level scarring where you can start to see some cybernetics in their eyes, that's quite cool.