If they go for an 'evil route', they better not equate it to hyper mega insane psychopath. Because that's just that: a mental disorder (or disorders in this case
) it has nothing to do with good/evil.
The fact that it is actually called a disorder is cringe worthy.
If they go for an 'evil route', they better not equate it to hyper mega insane psychopath. Because that's just that: a mental disorder (or disorders in this case
Thaos ix Arkannos, from Pillars of Eternity... THAT is 'evil. Or Saren from ME1, or the Illusive Man from MEII. Charismatic, coherent and convincing.
But I suppose it's really hard to translate that level of sophistication to the Player Character, without removing the player's ability to influence the character's persona.
Given the general idea behind ME:A it should be easier for writers if they care. Because usually evil guys conquer worlds, send minions to carry on with nefarious plans and do other fun stuff. What's left for a player? Being a jerk to hobos, trying to save up for new armor.
That's not the law of course. In Alpha Protocol PC can play his own game despite being one of many agents.
The fact that it is actually called a disorder is cringe worthy.
Well they make the game so can be to cruel or evil. Bioware will be called bigots or racist.
Eh, no. The fact that you can play such a psychotic individual and everybody still loves you is cringe worthy.
I'm talking to you, ME1-3
The fact that you think you can even fully play as a psychotic individual in ME1-3 is cringe worthy.
The fact that so many people are cringing on this thread is cringe worthy.
The fact that so many people are cringing on this thread is cringe worthy.
The fact that you're cringing about other people cringing in this thread is cringe worthy.
Eh, no. The fact that you can play such a psychotic individual and everybody still loves you is cringe worthy.
This is cringe worthy in real life as well, still doesn't prevent some people from being succesfull.
Evil adds flavour.
Good, nice protagonists are sometimes rather bland.
A bit of pragmatism, cunning, cynism and ruthlessness makes it interesting.
Combine this with occasional doubt and self-reflection and things will be real fun.
At least for me.
I don´t care for psychopaths. They tend to be too self-destructive.
Leaving the workers to die to kill Vido was no different from leaving the Terra Nova colonists to kill Balak, there was nothing evil about it. Vido could not be be allowed to live, the dude was a complete psycho only rivalled by Jona Sederis in the crazy department, another person who I make sure ends up dead due to her insanity, both of them make Balak look really tame.
I don't know if I would compare Vido and Balak. Balak was a terrorist while Vido was a criminal. Both bad people but I would say that letting hostages die to kill Balak is a more reasonable choice than letting the workers burn to go after a criminal. Either way, I choose to let Balak go and let the workers burn...cause I'm just crazy like that. lol!
No, I just like running into him in ME3. And Vido...well, screw those workers. None of them are gonna have my back during a suicide mission. although I think it's lame that Paragon Shepard can save the hostages AND still get Zaeed's loyalty. Such Paragon favoring BS right there.
I don't know if I would compare Vido and Balak. Balak was a terrorist while Vido was a criminal. Both bad people but I would say that letting hostages die to kill Balak is a more reasonable choice than letting the workers burn to go after a criminal. Either way, I choose to let Balak go and let the workers burn...cause I'm just crazy like that. lol!
No, I just like running into him in ME3. And Vido...well, screw those workers. None of them are gonna have my back during a suicide mission. although I think it's lame that Paragon Shepard can save the hostages AND still get Zaeed's loyalty. Such Paragon favoring BS right there.
I always tended to go for the hostages and hope that my reputation was high enough to convince Zaeed to be loyal. And I usually tended to sacrifice the hostages in order to bring an end to Balak, because I think of bin Laden escaping at Tora Bora and cringe. Harhar. No, but seriously, if I had a choice to kill someone like a Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi vs. rescuing hostages, I'm gonna go with killing the bad guy.
And in the end, you can get the mercs and the batarian terrorists on your side, so either way it's really not punishing you no matter what you choose. Of course, some people would view the ME2 decisions as meaningless....
I don't know if I would compare Vido and Balak. Balak was a terrorist while Vido was a criminal. Both bad people but I would say that letting hostages die to kill Balak is a more reasonable choice than letting the workers burn to go after a criminal. Either way, I choose to let Balak go and let the workers burn...cause I'm just crazy like that. lol!
No, I just like running into him in ME3. And Vido...well, screw those workers. None of them are gonna have my back during a suicide mission. although I think it's lame that Paragon Shepard can save the hostages AND still get Zaeed's loyalty. Such Paragon favoring BS right there.
That's not only what makes it absurd, Paragon Shepard makes Zaeed relive the same thing that had traumatized him in the first place(him being held down and with a gun to his face) whilst getting his loyalty. >_<
I want to be able to be this evil.
Eh, I won't stop people from being "evil." But I want bonuses for playing on both sides of the fence. Give the people who remain neutral or as close to neutral to receive the same benefits that being full paragon or renegade would be privy to.
I'll probably play paragon my first playthrough, but hopefully it would too cheesey and feeling like a boyscout in space.
Uh, I'm pretty sure my Shepard condemned no less than 4 races to extinction (Rachni, Krogan, Geth and Quarians).
I mean, I'm no moral philosopher, but I'm fairly sure genocide is pretty evil.
Uh, I'm pretty sure my Shepard condemned no less than 4 races to extinction (Rachni, Krogan, Geth and Quarians).
I mean, I'm no moral philosopher, but I'm fairly sure genocide is pretty evil.
The Rachni, Krogan and Geth were all threats to the galaxy and humanity, there's nothing "evil" about putting them in their place, and in case of the Krogans, it's they whom wipe themselves out with their own savagery and stupidity. When it comes to the Quarians, there's nothing evil about siding with the Geth over them if one deems the latter to be more useful as an ally.
The Rachni, Krogan and Geth were all threats to the galaxy and humanity, there's nothing "evil" about putting them in their place, and in case of the Krogans, it's they whom wipe themselves out with their own savagery and stupidity. When it comes to the Quarians, there's nothing evil about siding with the Geth over them if one deems the latter to be more useful as an ally.
You keep telling yourself that, Space Hitler.
First off, that isn't evil. You are replacing a tripartite dictatorship with a singular one. The status quo is essentially the same, except now the humans rule over everyone else instead of the asari, turians and salarians.
Second, you don't have to make that pact. My usual M.O. is to kill them off, then blow Udina's Galactic Empire plan off and put Anderson and a new Council in charge. It's ruthless to allow the Citadel fleet and a net 7,000 extra people to die, but ultimately those Councilors are arguably inept, racist, self absorbed terrible leaders who risk the lives of billions by being left to rule their detached oligarchy.
Their replacements are hardly better other than Anderson (who is an ineffectual politician anyway) because nearly all politicians in the ME universe are idiots, but that's not something you know at the time.
I would personally say that arbitrarily deciding who lives or dies based on personal grievances is quite evil. Bad politicians deserve to die? Come now. 
You keep telling yourself that, Space Hitler.
He's right you know. No need to Godwin this thread just because you don't like what he has to say.
@Seboist: So, if I care more about one of the many species of animals human beings have threatened with extinction out of negligence (not even out of any real sense of being douchebags)... then it's morally right to destroy the human race in the name of that species? You'd support that (even if you don't agree with it)?
Or are you a total hypocrite and your "this is good" based solely on your own bias as a human?
@Seboist: So, if I care more about one of the many species of animals human beings have threatened with extinction out of negligence (not even out of any real sense of being douchebags)... then it's morally right to destroy the human race in the name of that species? You'd support that (even if you don't agree with it)?
Or are you a total hypocrite and your "this is good" based solely on your own bias as a human?
I'm human and humans are my kin, so naturally my species' interests come first. Nothing hard to grasp there.
I'm human and humans are my kin, so naturally my species' interests come first. Nothing hard to grasp there.
You best care about that phytoplankton. Without those suckers, we're all boned.
Retour en haut