20 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroLSX]

I have a odd feeling that everyone that killed the queen but lived though this might have a harder time living in ME3. If you saved the queen she gives you a message on illium.


Though I also think if the reapers do travel all that way all we will have to do is keep them from a fueling stop and just watch them run to empty

[Intelwolves]

Hiro, Not sure if they use fuel as we know it and it looks like we are going to need as much help as we can get for ME 3. The way it looks. This battle will be one hell of a battle.

[Seraph666]

When I first discovered it I was abit worried, but then I sorta realized, they have to make both a full paragon and full renegade equally valid all the way through. So even if you've burned every single bridge and stand completely alone you will most likely be able to succeed in ME3. It would just make no sense for them to require you to re-do choices you've made in 1 and 2 to be able to come out on top in the last part.

Modifié par Seraph666, 30 janvier 2010 - 02:12 .

[Jersey75639]

I thought the first post should have read something like, "HAHA LOSERS."



Allow me to fill this void.



HAHA LOSERS.

[HiroLSX]

you know Seraph you make a good point there. I guess the only really only thing that is between them is how easy something might be later on,

[Ifandbut01]

I personally saved the queen in ME1, encouraged Tali's people to not go to war with the Geth and reprogrammed the heretics. I'm playing a mostly paragon and after hearing the message from the Queen I started to think I should focus on keeping my options open for ME3 to get the most races behind me to fight the reapers.

[Jonny_Evil]

I think paragons are going to have it easier in ME3 in general. Even saving the council seems to have been the right choice. A lot of people prior to ME2 couldn't understand why anyone would save the council and said it was a stupid decision. In ME2 you find that sacrificing the Council has a nasty cost to it, the Asari give up their defence responsibility, the Turians ignore the Treaty of Firaxen and everyone hates the humans. Everything's set up for a war just when you need them most. If you save the Council however the Asari still commit to defence, the Turians go out of their way to make nice with the Alliance and everyone rallies behind the humans. Pretty much if you let them die you'll probably have no council fleet behind you in ME3, if you're Paragon you will.

[Bann Duncan]

Jonny_Evil wrote...

I think paragons are going to have it easier in ME3 in general. Even saving the council seems to have been the right choice. A lot of people prior to ME2 couldn't understand why anyone would save the council and said it was a stupid decision. In ME2 you find that sacrificing the Council has a nasty cost to it, the Asari give up their defence responsibility, the Turians ignore the Treaty of Firaxen and everyone hates the humans. Everything's set up for a war just when you need them most. If you save the Council however the Asari still commit to defence, the Turians go out of their way to make nice with the Alliance and everyone rallies behind the humans. Pretty much if you let them die you'll probably have no council fleet behind you in ME3, if you're Paragon you will.

That's not necessarily true as there's a Paragon reason for not saving the council (millions of soldiers vs three council members)

[Jersey75639]

That line of reasoning only works if you don't consider the huge crew the ship that was carrying the council as people. A true paragon character couldn't exactly ignore them or consider their lives worth less than human lives.

[Jonny_Evil]

Bann Duncan wrote...

That's not necessarily true as there's a Paragon reason for not saving the council (millions of soldiers vs three council members)

2400 Alliance personnel died saving the Destiny Ascension, which had a crew of 10,000.

[Ktauliss]

As my Paragon recited to a certain obnoxious reporter you re-encounter on the Citadel, the relative costs (Ships and Personnel) Saving Destiny Ascension heavily favor Alliance Fleet.

the Consequences of NOT saving them obviously favor nobody (Except the Reapers).



That said I still Think the Council are acting like bleeding Idiots pretending it's all the Geth and there are NO REAPERS!

[LucidStrike]

Seraph666 wrote...

...they have to make both a full paragon and full renegade equally valid all the way through.

No, they don't, and they shouldn't. They just have to make sure they're both enjoyable.

[Seraph666]

Jonny_Evil wrote...

I think paragons are going to have it easier in ME3 in general. Even saving the council seems to have been the right choice. A lot of people prior to ME2 couldn't understand why anyone would save the council and said it was a stupid decision. In ME2 you find that sacrificing the Council has a nasty cost to it, the Asari give up their defence responsibility, the Turians ignore the Treaty of Firaxen and everyone hates the humans. Everything's set up for a war just when you need them most. If you save the Council however the Asari still commit to defence, the Turians go out of their way to make nice with the Alliance and everyone rallies behind the humans. Pretty much if you let them die you'll probably have no council fleet behind you in ME3, if you're Paragon you will.

Although I already made the point earlier in the thread, I'll say it again. If they in any way make it so choices you made in 1 and 2 will heavily affect your chance of success in the third, they will basically ruin the game for 50ish% of the fanbase. It's just suicide to go that way. Can you just imagine how much it would suck if you play through 3 just to realize half way in that because you imported a character you spent 50+ hours to make you'll most likely fail ?

LucidStrike wrote...

Seraph666 wrote...

...they
have to make both a full paragon and full renegade equally valid all the way through.

No, they don't, and they shouldn't. They just have to make sure they're both enjoyable.

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

So I guess you would be ok with the idea that because you went paragon you have a multi-race fleet that breaks apart because of lack of cohesiveness too ? Maybe being a human-supremacist was the right choice all along and if you import a character that relies on building alliances you'll just find yourself being stabbed in the  back and fail horribly ?

My point is, if the outcome of the game is already determined based on the character you import, the game itself
becomes pointless. What you do in the 3rd installment itself is what has to matter.

Modifié par Seraph666, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:22 .

[Seraph666]

double post

Modifié par Seraph666, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:11 .

[LucidStrike]

Seraph666 wrote...

So
I guess you would be ok with the idea that because you went paragon and
have a multi-race fleet that breaks apart because of lack of
cohesiveness would be ok too ? Maybe being a human-supremacist was the
right choice all along and if you import a character that relies on
building alliances you'll just find yourself being stabbed in the back
and fail horribly ?

I'm not supposing that I wouldn't be upset, just that the idea that BioWare HAS to make everything turn out well for everyone to require some sort of developer (read:divine) intervention, unrealistic. Sometimes, being an *sshole means bad things for you. I don't see why BioWare has to pretend otherwise. Same for being Paragon.

BioWare just has to make the experience equally enjoyable, whatever that means.

As a side note, the Citadel forces are pretty synergistic, so failing due to cohesiveness seems farfetch'd.

Modifié par LucidStrike, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:18 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Bann Duncan wrote...

Jonny_Evil wrote...

I think paragons are going to have it easier in ME3 in general. Even saving the council seems to have been the right choice. A lot of people prior to ME2 couldn't understand why anyone would save the council and said it was a stupid decision. In ME2 you find that sacrificing the Council has a nasty cost to it, the Asari give up their defence responsibility, the Turians ignore the Treaty of Firaxen and everyone hates the humans. Everything's set up for a war just when you need them most. If you save the Council however the Asari still commit to defence, the Turians go out of their way to make nice with the Alliance and everyone rallies behind the humans. Pretty much if you let them die you'll probably have no council fleet behind you in ME3, if you're Paragon you will.

That's not necessarily true as there's a Paragon reason for not saving the council (millions of soldiers vs three council members)

Tactical victories are not necessarily strategic ones.

[Jonny_Evil]

@seraph666

You're unlikely to fail, it'd just be harder or simply different. Logically if you've spent the past two games building consensus and making peace, you're going to have more allies to fight the Reapers than if you've been sowing chaos in the name of expediency.

Modifié par Jonny_Evil, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:18 .

[LucidStrike]

Jonny_Evil wrote...

@seraph666

You're unlikely to fail, it'd just be harder or simply different. Logically if you've spent the past two games building consensus and making peace, you're going to have more allies to fight the Reapers than if you've been sowing chaos in the name of expediency.

THANK YOU. It's that simple. You don't make allies by being an *sshole. If you do that, you SHOULD have fewer allies. Maybe you have to do it otherways. Sort of like confederacy versus federalism. I mean that last Renegade option seems to secure Reaper technology for humanity, so I guess that's how Renegades will win.

[Seraph666]

Well, this can quickly turn into quite a bipartisan debate I'd say in the end neither side is by default any better than the other. I just find it hard to believe they would make a game where you know that you will fail. Why would anyone even try at that point ?

I'm all for different, and maybe even a tad harder but taking it any further just makes no sense for how the trilogy has been built so far. They have always been 2 different but valid options. Changing it up for the final chapter would completely alienate a very large portion of the playerbase.

(please note that I used of the word valid both in this post and my first, not equal.)

Modifié par Seraph666, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:36 .

[Areos81]

I'm not sure that it is so clear cut that saving the rachni queen in ME1 will mean good things for you in ME3. Lets not forget that the rachni were indoctrinated once already. Who knows how easily they can be again. It would really suck to be fighting the reapers along side the rachni, only to have the rachni get indoctrinated again and attack you.



For the record I saved the queen every time I played so if it does mean potentially bad things in ME3 I'll get them as well.

[Pathogen69]

ya, i was a little disappointed by the total lack of anything to do with the rachni in me2. but, i did let the queen go back on noveria, and the message i received on illium leads me to believe that the rachni are itching for payback at the reapers, and as such, will play a pivotal role in the upcoming installment.