582 réponses à ce sujet

[falloutgod13]

Mister Mage wrote...

He rarely does.  He funded those horrible experiments in ME2, didn't he?  He thinks that the end goal is all that matters, without worrying about the process, assuming he'll be vindicated by history.  This is a theme of the franchise, that the process is just as important as the end goal.  Legion says so.  Sovereign says so.  They do so in the context of advancing on your own, instead of along the Reaper's tech tree, but the theme is still being applied here.  The Illusive Man says "Judge us not by what we do, but what we seek to accomplish".  He may not be pure "evil", he may see his way as just, but he's horribly misguided, by the morality set in this universe at least.

If advancing on your own and not along reaper tech is "right" then the whole galaxy is wrong. Everything from the guns to the space ships use mass effect technology. So what is your point? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

EDIT: Put wrong instead of right. I was wrong. lol

Modifié par falloutgod13, 02 février 2010 - 03:13 .

[Mister Mage]

falloutgod13 wrote...
If advancing on your own and not along reaper tech is "right" then the whole galaxy is wrong. Everything from the guns to the space ships use mass effect technology. So what is your point? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. 

EDIT: Put wrong instead of right. I was wrong. lol

Actually, this is the implication.  This statement is true.

By advancing on the Reaper's tech tree, they both refused themselves the opportunity to grow on their own.  And by advancing along the lines that the Reapers set out for sentient life, the galaxy fell into a Reaper attack trap.  If you'll remember, that was the whole plot of Mass Effect.

Also, Mass Effect tech was discovered on its own.  It is the Mass Relays that were the problem.  If you'll remember, humans figured out how to use Mass Effect tech from stashes of Element Zero on Mars.  And a Mass Effect is a physics phenomenon, not a tech in and of itself.

[falloutgod13]

Mister Mage wrote...

falloutgod13 wrote...
If advancing on your own and not along reaper tech is "right" then the whole galaxy is wrong. Everything from the guns to the space ships use mass effect technology. So what is your point? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. 

EDIT: Put wrong instead of right. I was wrong. lol

Actually, this is the implication.  This statement is true.

By advancing on the Reaper's tech tree, they both refused themselves the opportunity to grow on their own.  And by advancing along the lines that the Reapers set out for sentient life, the galaxy fell into a Reaper attack trap.  If you'll remember, that was the whole plot of Mass Effect.

Also, Mass Effect tech was discovered on its own.  It is the Mass Relays that were the problem.  If you'll remember, humans figured out how to use Mass Effect tech from stashes of Element Zero on Mars.  And a Mass Effect is a physics phenomenon, not a tech in and of itself.

Whoops, you have a point there on the mass effect. Still it's all very subjective and while TIM might not be the best person to entrust with new technology there's still something of benefit from researching advanced tech of the reapers. Understanding the repear building process can give insight into how to destroy them. It could lead to the discovery of structural weaknesses.

[zmortis1]

It is interesting that without knowing the final outcome of either decision (as presumably seen during the play of the upcomming ME-3) people are dead set in stating they are making the "correct" choice. Once again I will point out using meta gaming that neither choice is more "valid" than the other. Either choice will result in currently unforseen consequences.



Personally, I decided to use the David Brin "Humanity uber Alles" option where the protagonist insists on doing things our way instead of depending on poorly understood alien technology (though properly understood alien technology is fine). I tempered this with the "Babylon 5" motto of "Humans build communities", and thus generally are not isolationist and xenophobic without falling into the Star Trek paradigm of "one big happy Federation". The comming conflict in ME-3 will presumably happen in Shepard's lifetime, and given the relatively little amount of time spent researching Reaper/Collector/Prothean technology turning up few results which could turn the tide up till now, it seems to my play style unlikely that anything learned from the Collector base could be adequately put to use in a timely fashion. Instead, using my "Humanity uber Alles" play style, I chose to blow the Collector base back to the Hell it came from because it was just more viscerally satisfying to me. That was the Paragon Choice, and I'm prepared to face the consequences of that decision in ME-3.



I don't agree that choice needs to be "punished" because "reality" demands it any more than the renegade choice needs to be "punished" because "morality" demands it. I do think there should be consequences both good and bad in ME-3 based on either action. Some clearly potential consequences are losing the assistance of the aliens in the fight against the reapers for making the renegade choice, but maintaining the considerable assistance of Cerberus. Conversely the other Paragon option is to loose the assistance of Cerberus and potentially gain the aid of a coalition of alien races. Realistically neither choice is likely to drastically change your ability to achieve success in ME-3, but it should impact the path you use to get there and the "end game" result you achieve.



I think it generally comes down to a certain literary paradigm. Whether to write the protagonist as a Hero or an anti-Hero. This tendancy goes back as far as Homer and the Illiad. Achiles was given a choice by the gods to either be a Hero and die with glory in battle or to become someone who survives and lives a normal life without his name being known through history. Most of the Illiad is used to establish that only Achiles can win the war against Illium for Agamemnon by defeating Hector.



The interesting thing is that Achiles wins the fight against Hector and gains his immortality in fame through battle. Yet it is the anti-Hero Odysseus who delivers victory against Illium through his Trojan Horse strategy.



So the question is do you want to play your Sheridan as the Hero or the anti-Hero. That is what the difference between the Paragon and Renegade choices really means. Either way can get the job done. Which is more satisfying to you as the player is the question.



I hope this helps.



p.s. read the Homer's the Odyssey to see the consequences of being an anti-Hero who choses the pragmatic over the honorable.

[Mister Mage]

falloutgod13 wrote...

Mister Mage wrote...

falloutgod13 wrote...
If advancing on your own and not along reaper tech is "right" then the whole galaxy is wrong. Everything from the guns to the space ships use mass effect technology. So what is your point? Sounds like hypocrisy to me. 

EDIT: Put wrong instead of right. I was wrong. lol

Actually, this is the implication.  This statement is true.

By advancing on the Reaper's tech tree, they both refused themselves the opportunity to grow on their own.  And by advancing along the lines that the Reapers set out for sentient life, the galaxy fell into a Reaper attack trap.  If you'll remember, that was the whole plot of Mass Effect.

Also, Mass Effect tech was discovered on its own.  It is the Mass Relays that were the problem.  If you'll remember, humans figured out how to use Mass Effect tech from stashes of Element Zero on Mars.  And a Mass Effect is a physics phenomenon, not a tech in and of itself.

Whoops, you have a point there on the mass effect. Still it's all very subjective and while TIM might not be the best person to entrust with new technology there's still something of benefit from researching advanced tech of the reapers. Understanding the repear building process can give insight into how to destroy them. It could lead to the discovery of structural weaknesses.

Yes, there is a benefit.  The point though, is a "At what cost?" question.

Now, Renegades say screw the cost, they want results.

Paragons consider the process as important as the result.  This makes them idealists for the most part, but in this case we have Shepard not taking the base.  Why?

Well, the thing eats people.  The tech is too powerful for one man, especially the man we're talking about.  We can tell from the Paragon ending(I'm not sure about the Renegade one, still haven't completed a Renegade play) that The Illusive Man intends to usurp the Alliance and likely the Alliance as well.  Now, Cerberus may get results, but we have seen in both games that they're often willing to do anything in order to get that result.  They are a Renegade organization, and giving them questionable technology that eats people is a fairly well-grounded Renegade option, I think.

[Kreid]

TIM practically shouts in your own face that the base would have put humanity above every other species in the Galaxy, he wants dominion and can't be trusted, sure, Cerberus does what has to be done and that's a point on TIM's behalf but giving him such power, it would become too dangerous for everyone in the Galaxy.



Like my Paragon Shepard said, I'm standing true to myself and wining this battle on my own like I've done before

[john william]

I love that everyone uses the responses of their teammates and the Illusive Man as evidence for why you should make the paragon choice when it all happens after you've made your decision. I prefer to roleplay in the moment.

I think Bioware made the Paragon choice feel good because it was the wrong decision.

But ME3 will be what it will be, and just like keeping the delirious Quarian had no benefit(aside from just getting jerk points), we'll probably get no reward for doing the smart thing in this scenario.

Modifié par john william, 02 février 2010 - 04:22 .

[Fulgrim88]

Mister Mage wrote...
Yes, there is a benefit.  The point though, is a "At what cost?" question.

Now, Renegades say screw the cost, they want results.

Paragons consider the process as important as the result.  This makes them idealists for the most part, but in this case we have Shepard not taking the base.  Why?

I've always been wondering why people tend to think of Renegade as "the easy way out", with Paragon being the thoughtful and sensible way to handle things.

Remember: Ruthless is a background trait, not an alignment.

It's perfectly possible to play a "good" Shepard, who's still able to make unpopular decisions if need be. Being Renegade doesn't imply being a cold and ruthless jackass. It's basically about wether you want to be admired for your actions (Paragon), or are content with being despised by the public, as long as you feel you did the right thing.
Contrary to your thesis, i believe being everyones darling and not really caring about how to come up with sufficient tech with the base gone, as the easy way out. It's basically a gamble with the live of billions, build up on nothing but the feeble hope that "we'll come up with something in the end"

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 02 février 2010 - 04:32 .

[Darnalak]

Samara pretty much summed it up... "The illusive man beleived he had the wisdom to use the collector technology...He does not".

[Mister Mage]

john william wrote...

I love that everyone uses the responses of their teammates and the Illusive Man as evidence for why you should make the paragon choice when it all happens after you've made your decision. I prefer to roleplay in the moment.

I think Bioware made the Paragon choice feel good because it was the wrong decision.

That makes no sense, you know.  It's downright stupid.  Why would they do that?  To stroke your ego, specifically?

As I've said, the ENTIRE GAME is based around this decision being the "bad" one.  First, you have Cerberus.  He says "Judge us not by what we do, but what we seek to accomplish".  Renegade thinking from the very roots of the organization.

The largest overarching theme of the Mass Effect franchise is that two people can go about the same task with different processes, and(unintentionally or not) get completely different results.  Paragons embody the ideal of getting things done the "right" way.

The Geth that believe the end result is most important are the ones that fight against you in the first game.

The Spectre that thinks that the end justifies the means is your enemy in the first game.

The Cerberus that you are giving this tech to proved itself capable screwing up aliens and alien technology by recklessly experimenting with it. See: EVERY Cerberus mission in the first game.

Sovereign tells you, outright, that by advancing along their lines, we doom ourselves to destruction.  Different circumstance, yes, but part of the overarching theme we have going here.

One of Legion's responses to Shepard's questions is that the path to the end is just as important as that end itself.  Building your own future, rather than having it given to you or taking it.

Now, you can argue night and day whether or not this is "right".  But any morality play will convey and teach the morals of the writer(s).  

[john william]

There are far too many instances where renegade is simply the jerkface, mean for the sake of being mean option to have this balance you guys think is there. And also far too many instances of where only complete sociopaths wouldn't pick the paragon option. Maybe Bioware should have added a second scale like they did in Fable 2, where you could have a good guy who was corrupt, ie the antihero. Don't get me started on how stupid the purity/corruption scale was in actual effect, as Fable's grasp of moral clarity was about as firm as Biowares. But the concept is a good one.



So, for ME, you could have a renegade/paragon scale, and a seperate good/evil scale for those deciosions that are pure malice/altruism.

[Hooligunn]

All I'd like to add after what I said earlier in the thread is that to all the people saying "Reaper tech is a stupid thing to use against the Reapers! Too risky!" ect, I have yet to see one of you mention anything about the citadel.

The Citadel, as proved by the first game, is probably the biggest risk to the entire galactic community. If even one Reaper came to the Citadel now, with the weakened fleets (which I presume they were trying to do in Mass 2 by building a Human Reaper), there would be no stopping it. It would activate the Citadel and BAM, Reaper invasion plus all the centralised power to the Galactic Community taken out in one fell swoop.

Yet, they hold onto it. They control it. They use it. Why can't it be the same with the Collector Base? As I said in my posts before, the Reapers UNDERESTIMATE humanity and most of the current galactic races. They never thought humanity would be able to fend off Sovereign at the Citadel. They never thought EDI would be onboard the Normandy to fight off the Collector Virus, or escape and shut down the secret signal in the Reaper module. They never would have even thought it possible for a Collector Base to be taken over either, and as evident by Harbinger letting go of control of the station, he expected it to be destroyed when it did happen anyway.

Just thought I'd drop that in there, seems like many people forget that the Reapers might have based their plans off their own technology and using it against the civilizations that utilize it, but they don't plan for the unpredictable.

Modifié par Hooligunn, 02 février 2010 - 04:45 .

[Solmanian]

We're fighting for the survival of the entire galaxy. finding why the reapers want to harvest us may be horrifying, but it doesn't change our mission, it just makes it more importent. It proves that defeat is not an option. For the reapers the harvesting is the only way of reproduction, meaning they will never give up, never surrender. Our technology is allready based on "reaper-tech", the one they planted. But they never counted on us capturing that station, and we need every edge. The "baby-reaper" would likely give us alot of information on the reaper ships themselves, Most of you still don't like cerberus, but since the council&alliance is ignoring the reapers, someone needs the head the research, and find a way to take them down with sacrificing an entire fleet to destroy one ship...

[Mister Mage]

Fulgrim88 wrote...
I've always been wondering why people tend to think of Renegade as "the easy way out", with Paragon being the thoughtful and sensible way to handle things.

Remember: Ruthless is a background trait, not an alignment.

It's perfectly possible to play a "good" Shepard, who's still able to make unpopular decisions if need be. Being Renegade doesn't imply being a cold and ruthless jackass. It's basically about wether you want to be admired for your actions (Paragon), or are content with being despised by the public, as long as you feel you did the right thing.
Contrary to your thesis, i believe being everyones darling and not really caring about how to come up with sufficient tech with the base gone, as the easy way out. It's basically a gamble with the live of billions, build up on nothing but the feeble hope that "we'll come up with something in the end"

Ruthless is a background history that adds initial alignment points to the Renegade side.

I never said "good" or "evil" for a reason.  What we have are people who think ends justify means, and those who think means are just as important as the ends.  If you care about how you do something, and not just what you get out of it, then you don't slam your fists into people.  You don't shoot them if they're unarmed.  You try for diplomacy before blasting away at someone's face.  If you're all about the end goal, then you'll push and shove your way to the top.  Maybe it gets results.  Maybe you lose something important on the way to your goal, and I'd like to see Mass Effect 3 play on that a bit.  Have the Renegade option "succeed" against the Reapers, but at the cost of destroying everything worth saving, and a Paragon choice that, albeit heroically, fails in the final moments.  Sure they won't go that direction, though.

[defenestrated]

john william wrote...

I love that everyone uses the responses of their teammates and the Illusive Man as evidence for why you should make the paragon choice when it all happens after you've made your decision. I prefer to roleplay in the moment.

IMO, the Paragon choices in this game were trickier than before. The early Paragon dialog choices regarding the Geth virus would lead one to believe destruction is more ethical than forcibly rewriting their "brains". Paragon Genophage research conversations stress the unethical (and sometimes involuntary) nature of the testing behind the current results. I said "no" to TIM regarding the Collector base initially because I thought I needed to be persuaded, same as my Shep balking at working with Cerberus initially. You do get a chance to change your mind. TIM's rant just pushed me from "I should probably destroy this..." to "I'm blowing the crap out of this!"

Is TIM's reaction/rant as extreme if you first say you're not destroying the base, I wonder?

[deusofnull]

john william wrote...

Bioware's morality makes about as much sense here as the whole "destroy the council/save the council" dilemma at the end of ME1.  Which is to say none at all.  I actually resisted the urge to keep the collector base but I couldn't argue against Illusive Man's cold, hard logic.  There's no question that the galactic civilization is better off with the treasure trove of secrets that is the collector base.

All the BS about not following the reaper's technological progression explains this.  Mr Leigon explained that in detail.  You have to work for your achievenments to understand.  You must understand to excell.  You must excell to survive (and kill the reapers)

[Fulgrim88]

Mister Mage wrote...
Have the Renegade option "succeed" against the Reapers, but at the cost of destroying everything worth saving, and a Paragon choice that, albeit heroically, fails in the final moments.

That's my fondest wish, actually.

It won't happen though, which is what drove me into this discussion. Paragon will be win/win, just like it was in ME1, Renegade will end up being the xenophobe jackass-choice, with near to no positive outcome for the actual battle.

Yet, they hold onto it. They control it. They use it. Why can't it be
the same with the Collector Base? As I said in my posts before, the
Reapers UNDERESTIMATE humanity and most of the current galactic
races. They never thought humanity would be able to fend off Sovereign
at the Citadel. They never thought EDI would be onboard the Normandy to
fight off the Collector Virus, or escape and shut down the secret
signal in the Reaper module. They never would have even thought it
possible for a Collector Base to be taken over either, and as evident
by Harbinger letting go of control of the station, he expected it to be
destroyed when it did happen anyway.

Ho ho, now maybe Sovereign told Shepard that advancing along their lines would play into the hands of the Reapers, to manipulate him into blowing up the base and thereby any chance to understand and countermeasure Reaper technology in time.
Now maybe we should think of it that way:P

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 02 février 2010 - 05:02 .

[Series5Ranger]

I look at it this way:



A) TIM can't be trusted

Reaper Tech is dangerous (Indoctrination, following along the Paths the Reapers want you to go etc.)

C) Humans can't do it Alone

D) EDI is partially based on Reaper tech, and it can / could cost you the Crew.

[wilde-shade]

I ended up replaying the ending because I lost a crew member. The first time around, I destroyed the base. It just didn't sit well with me. My first Shepard is supposed to be me (Yes, I'm a dork.) and that usually means paragon... except, I would have kept the base.



So when I played back through so everyone could survive, I kept the base. Never mind that my team mates said I should while it was decision-making time, when I get back to the ship, those same characters are calling me out on my choice.



I was a little annoyed with the post-game. Just let me move on and face the consequences in ME3... I still think I did the right thing. So there.

[Jonny_Evil]

D3thray wrote...

Why is the conduit totally irrelevant? Because they merely used it to travel to the Citadel after the Reapers had already left the galaxy. It was merely the quickest way there, if they had not gained the ability to build it then they could have taken a ship to the Citadel instead.

You mean the fictional-even-in-Mass-Effect-ships that can travel from one side of the galaxy to the other in less than a lifetime?  They have FTL sure but the Galaxy is huge, many thousands of light years across.  Even at light speed it would take 100,000 years to cross from one side to the other.  The Reapers would have come and gone twice more by then.  The conduit is significant in that it was the ONLY way to carry out their plan of re-engineering the Keepers, i.e. the only way that allowed the Reapers even be possibly defeatable has been using Reaper tech...

Relays, genius. The Reapers leave them behind when they retreat into darkspace. The Protheans on Ilos could have hopped in a ship and gone back to the Citadel in exactly the same way they got to Ilos in the first place, and the relays are designed to be easy to use by anyone with no knowledge of the tech involved.

I swear people aren't even trying anymore. All these pages of complaints about "Why can't I tell the council?" "I'd give the council or the alliance the base" and nobody has pointed out where the omega 4 relay actually is. Right next to the capital of the Terminus systems, the part of the galaxy the council weren't willing to send a fleet to even under threat of Saren's geth because it would start a massive war with the Terminus species. Good job on plunging the galaxy into war when the council or alliance try to get access to the base you've given them.

Modifié par Jonny_Evil, 02 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[senojones]

falloutgod13 wrote...

Really, now where does it say those things?

http://masseffect.wi...ki/Illusive_Man

As far as everything else, nothing changes the fact TIM is evil, and doing anything to help TIM is bad for everyone cept humans. You can keep trying to defend the idea of doing the logical choice by giving TIM reaper tech is good, but no matter what it never will be.

Modifié par senojones, 02 février 2010 - 05:55 .

[samuraix87]

at the end int the cargo hold joker hand shepard a pad with a reaper on it could that be reaper tech or specs on the reapers

[TrueRedemption]

To answer the initial question of this thread, first it must be said yet again that there is no "correct" choice. Two undeniable reasons this is true: 1 because we do not know the outcome of either choice (yet); 2 each player defines what they believe "correct" is.



I want to focus on the second reason for a moment, because it is critical in the reasoning behind the paragon and renegade choices. The concept of correct is inherently dependent upon perspective, Consider this, you have a choice between rescuing one of 2 boats that are sinking. Boat A has 1 person on it, boat B has 100 people, which do you save? Most ethical codes and their instilled morality would guide you towards saving boat B. However what if the person on boat A had the cure to cancer, and if you saved them ultimately thousands could live who would otherwise die? That single piece of information has shifted perspective, no one would blame you for saving boat B if you didn't know that information, but it gets fuzzy once that twist is known. This isn't a direct comparison to saving or destroying the base, don't take it as one. Instead realize that in playing through the game we all accumulated different information, each shaping our own perspectives. Even if we all had the same information, certain parts of the story and characters appeal to each player more than others. What each of us deems as "correct" is not going to be what someone else thinks is correct, not because their reasons or our reasons are bad, but because different parts of the story mean more to us than others. Unless Bioware makes the outcomes of a particular choice cross a fundamental ideal or concept which we all view as incorrect, there are no correct choices in this game. For instance, since we are all trying to save the galaxy, Shepard choosing to sit at home and not do anything would be considered the "wrong" choice by an overwhelming majority (except by emo kids wanting to feel unique and special). Whether you make your choices based on some morality, logic, or even spur of the moment inclination, those choices are yours and as long as you chose them because you wanted that choice at that moment, they are correct.



Finally getting to the heart of the matter, Paragon and Renegade need to be defined, they are not good and evil, they are not mutually exclusive of one another nor are they even 2 sides of the same spectrum. No matter what choices you make in game, Shepard always comes out a hero does he not? You'll always repel the initial reaper invasion in ME1, and you'll always remove the collector threat in ME2. Paragon and Renegade are based on two things, one is personality or style, and the other is that focus or perspective I mentioned earlier. The best example I can give is this: Luke Skywalker is a prime example of paragon, Han Solo is a great example of renegade. Both are heroes, both are key in defeating the empire, but each of them does things their own way. Luke is brave, noble, optimistic to the point of being foolhardy. He believes he can beat anyone, do anything, and is an idealist (which ultimately works out for him as he isn't swayed to the dark side). Han on the other hand knows life isn't fair, fairy tales aren't true, and he shapes his perspective around ensuring survival/success for himself and those he cares about. He is aware of how strong the Empire is and doesn't want to just throw himself out there to get killed. Neither of these approaches are wrong, and there must be overlap between them for either to be successful, Luke would die right away if he just charged forward on ideals, and Han would have no friends/allys if he only looked out for himself and he'd ultimately die as well. This is why you can get both paragon and renegade points, playing purely paragon or renegade is unbelievable, reality is a mix of both.



So as for the decision about the reaper base, and each players perspective on what is the correct choice, let me suggest this phrasing of the question. Are you like Luke, driven by ideals, optimistic that you can beat whatever comes your way regardless of how strong it is, and your going to do it being brave and noble? Or are you more concerned with the power of the reaper threat like Han, realizing that you need every bit of help you can get to fight off their technology and numbers?







-TrueRedemption



P.S. If you actually read the whole post, grats, and my thanks, if you thought it was tldr, your loss.

[Rendar666]

It's renegade because only an *** hole would even want to take advantage of this seriously ****** up experiments you dolt! Honestly man. That's like keeping the ****'s gas chambers just in case you decide you want to spark a mass genocide.

[Fulgrim88]

Great, i am Han Solo. I know there is a reason why my Shep wore this Vest all the time

And thanks for a completely ignorant comment, Rendar. Here i was fearing that this thread might be turning into a reasonable discussion

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 02 février 2010 - 06:28 .