268 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

redguppie wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

redguppie wrote...

Your duty is to Your crew, not the Quarians. And her father is dead it's hard to make it more accountable.

Your duty is to save the freaking Galaxy (and that covers your crew too), and not some dead person's reputation, just because it would please one of the crewmembers (that was shoven down Shepard's throat by BioWare, for the sole reason that this crewmember has a crowd of obsessed fans in real life.)

On the main mission I would agree with you, but this is a loyalty mission we are talking about.  You do these as a favor to your crew.  And since your crew is REQUIRED to help you save the GALAXY it's a good idea to help them when you can as well.

See, some people think that some decisions mady on those "loyalty" missions may affect the saving the galaxy part of the job. And some think, that in the long run it will be more beneficial to achive certain outcome of the trial, that makes some individuals unhappy.

And I wish people would quit with the crying about forcing of characters down someones throats.     The only people you had to recruit was the first four, and none of them are being discussed her. 

What about new weapons (and upgrades and XP), that can be obtained only on recruitment missions are not available otherwise?

P.S. Before talking about others obsessions, maybe you should deal with your own hatreds and prejudices before trying to insult people over a video game forum.

 

I'd be happy to leave Tali with the Migrant Fleet arter her trial. She belongs there, not on my Cerberus ship with Cerberus crew on a Cerberus mission. But no, she's a fan favorite. Too bad for her in *my* canon.

Because your obsessions shine through in just about every comment you make

Maybe you should make yourself more clear?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 mars 2010 - 12:03 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

DarkNova50 wrote...

From a realistic standpoint, I think I'd stand by Tali. After all, it's her father, and her people...best let her decide what her fate should be.
Fortunately, in a world where a charismatic Shepard's words are better than proof, such a decision isn't needed!
...
Did anybody else find those persuasion options incredibly vapid?

The Renegade one pretty much summed up how I felt about the situation.

Landsmeet = Cool, overall situation, waste of my time.  Thanks for the opporitunity to kill Geth though.  Sure as hell beats fighting mercs and their robots.

[CmdrFenix83]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Your duty is to save the freaking Galaxy (and that covers your crew too), and not some dead person's reputation, just because it would please one of the crewmembers (that was shoven down Shepard's throat by BioWare, for the sole reason that this crewmember has a crowd of obsessed fans in real life.)

Again, you're ignoring the point.  You aren't required to get Tali.  She is not shoved down your throat any more than Liara, Ash, or Kaiden were.  You only have to see her once, and that's the end of it. 

See, some people think that some decisions mady on those "loyalty" missions may affect the saving the galaxy part of the job. And some think, that in the long run it will be more beneficial to achive certain outcome of the trial, that makes some individuals unhappy.

So don't metagame and play your character.  If you believe helping your squadmates with their personal issues benefits the mission, then help them.  If they're just tools to get the job done... well, enjoy your fall from the Normandy in the Collector Base.

What about new weapons (and upgrades and XP), that can be obtained only on recruitment missions are not available otherwise?

Metagaming again.  You don't get to talk about roleplaying decisions being right/wrong when the only reason you're doing anything is for the XP/Upgrades/Weapons.

I'd be happy to leave Tali with the Migrant Fleet arter her trial. She belongs there, not on my Cerberus ship with Cerberus crew on a Cerberus mission. But no, she's a fan favorite. Too bad for her in *my* canon.

Your canon Shepard has selective omnipotence.  He knows where every potential upgrade is in the world, and decides that it's worth recruiting/helping people he hates for these upgrades.  As a result, he's a giant douchebag and screws over these people he's supposed to be helping.

Glad I don't know you.  "With friends like you..." and all that.

[Zulu_DFA]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rant all you want about truth and consistensy throughout the game, it's still the best explantaion, just because it's the in-game explanation and a good chance is that it literally reproduces the development documentation of ME2, pinned at every BW writer's workplace.

See, I'm not the one who is ranting. I have evidence to back up my position. Clear proof from the game that these decisions are not based on a tranquil/frantic system. Your only evidence is one small email from Chawkwas that was probably thrown together in a haste to have weak justification for Shepard's appearance changing based on his actions. And this evidence doesn't hold up when compared to all of the actions in the game that clearly contradict it.

It is not the best explanation since it does not hold up at all. Less than an hour into the game you can make choices that contradict it. You're going to have to do better to convince me that BioWare's writers actually designed these choices around a tranquil/frantic system.

Sorry, buddy, but if the "small email" can't convince you, I can neither.

However, you are ranting. About truth, evidence, inconsistensy and vague ideas.

I rant only about that "small e-mail".

Have a tranquil cigarette.

[Internet Kraken]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...



Rant all you want about truth and consistensy throughout the game, it's still the best explantaion, just because it's the in-game explanation and a good chance is that it literally reproduces the development documentation of ME2, pinned at every BW writer's workplace.

See, I'm not the one who is ranting. I have evidence to back up my position. Clear proof from the game that these decisions are not based on a tranquil/frantic system. Your only evidence is one small email from Chawkwas that was probably thrown together in a haste to have weak justification for Shepard's appearance changing based on his actions. And this evidence doesn't hold up when compared to all of the actions in the game that clearly contradict it.



It is not the best explanation since it does not hold up at all. Less than an hour into the game you can make choices that contradict it. You're going to have to do better to convince me that BioWare's writers actually designed these choices around a tranquil/frantic system.

Sorry, buddy, but if the "small email" can't convince you, I can neither.



However, you are ranting. About truth, evidence, inconsistensy and vague ideas.



I rant only about that "small e-mail".



Have a tranquil cigarette.

If you're going to continue to deny the evidence that disproves the email, then I guess I can't convince you either.

[KnotEngaged]

Geez this thread's still going? Clearly the trolls were able to successfully draw out some talimancers.

Anyway, I can't say I'm not biased. I have a Tali .gif in my signature and a Tali avatar. So clearly I'm going to say not present the evidence every time. But I'll try to look at this objectively, though I'll probably fail.

Tali asks you to help clear her name at first. I went into the mission with that mentality, no matter what it took, we would clear her name. When we found out what Rael was doing, I was still thinking about turning in the evidence. This is what we came for, Tali's father be damned. She wasn't that close to him anyway right? But when she begged me not to incriminate him I had to think.

Sometimes priorities change. Sometimes the right thing isn't the best thing and the best thing isn't the right thing. At some point it's about listening to what your friend wants, despite what is perhaps better for them. Do you let Tali's father die a hero and a good man, or do you expose him as a monster? Forever tainting not only his name but Tali's as well. If she is willing to take the fall for her father, that is something you have to give her.

Ask yourself, would you be willing to take a hit to your own credibility, your own reputation, if it meant protecting someone you love? I can't say for sure, but my gut reaction is that I would be willing to take a hit to my personal reputation if it meant protecting my families name. And a good friend recognizes and respects that choice; they let their friend have their way, even if it might hurt them.

Revealing the evidence is detrimental to your cause anyway, it will only encourage quarian war with the geth, it also breaks up the fleet. But that really isn't the point of the mission. The point is supporting your friend in their choices, whether that means fighting in court for them, or standing by silently as they willingly take an undeserved punishment for someone else.



Of course you could just use the charm or intimidate option and not have to deal with this. Just saying.

[mortons4ck]

thedoncarnage wrote...

cipher_Cero wrote...

I'm still iffy on what makes Rael'Zorah a war criminal. I'm not saying I disagree or agree, but there are several things here that complicate that. A war crime is defined as the murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war.

1) The geth used for experiments were not prisoners. They were disabled components that were repaired, reactivated, and networked.

By networking the reanimated geth the quarian scientists made them sentient again. Self aware. Capable of free will. They were performing experiments on sentient beings against their will.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure all the geth experimented on were parts of the Heretics. Legion is the only true geth to venture outside the Perseus Veil (there may be more, but I'm sure they are outnumbered by the heretics).

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

What do you gain from hiding the
truth? The loyalty of an needy, immature Quarian? Continued cover-ups in
a fleet that is lying to itself? Tell me, did you guys who gained her
loyalty lie about her saving the Citadel from the Geth? Because, you
know, it was Shepard who saved the Citadel, not Tali.

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

As for Quarian help with the
reaper threat. Firstly, there is nothing in Shepard's experience with
the Quarians that would indicate they would be a significant ally
against the reapers. Secondly, while I don't get the "ah yes..." speech
from any of them, they don't seem to take anything I say about the
reapers seriously enough to change their minds.

Now compare this
to Legion. First time you meet him he lends a hand by taking out a few
husks. I won't say he 'saved' Shepard because Shep has proven that a few
husks are never an issue. He explains to Shep that they are on the same
side and that not all Geth are the same. When he asks for your help, it
is a welcome detour because it offers a chance to deal with the
Heretics once and for all - its a great opportunity. When you arrive
there he tells you what the options are, and leaves the choice to you.
He does not drag you all the way there and insist that everything has to
be done his way.  Moreover, his people know the Reaper threat and want
to do something about it, and have a proven military capability. It
becomes clear to me who the worthy ally is here.

Preventing a massive incident that will lead to mutually assured destruction between the Geth and the Quarians. If such a war were to happen, the Quarians would most likely be wiped out and the Geth would have serious casualities and a weakened military. So even if you favor the Geth over the Quarians, it is not in your best interests to have the Geth throw away many of their forces to eradicate the Quarians.

[Zulu_DFA]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Metagaming again.  You don't get to talk about roleplaying decisions being right/wrong when the only reason you're doing anything is for the XP/Upgrades/Weapons.

I'd be happy to leave Tali with the Migrant Fleet arter her trial. She belongs there, not on my Cerberus ship with Cerberus crew on a Cerberus mission. But no, she's a fan favorite. Too bad for her in *my* canon.

Your canon Shepard has selective omnipotence.  He knows where every potential upgrade is in the world, and decides that it's worth recruiting/helping people he hates for these upgrades.  As a result, he's a giant douchebag and screws over these people he's supposed to be helping.

Glad I don't know you.  "With friends like you..." and all that.

Look. TIM just gave me the best ship in the galaxy to ride. Why did he forget to provide me with all sorts of best equipment? Because necessity to go "do missions" for upgrades is a gameplay mechanic. I can see no metagaming here. Metagaming is checking out for consequenses of your decisions, then reversing them, if you don't like the result. No long-term consequences from decisions made at Tali's trial are known as of now. I made my decisions. If I'll be reversing them when I see their impact in ME3, that'll be metagaming. And my Giant Douchebag Shepard isn't supposed to help any particular individuals. He was an Alliance officer once, then he was killed in action. Now he is Cerberus operative. That's about it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 mars 2010 - 12:45 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Rant all you want about truth and consistensy throughout the game, it's still the best explantaion, just because it's the in-game explanation and a good chance is that it literally reproduces the development documentation of ME2, pinned at every BW writer's workplace.

See, I'm not the one who is ranting. I have evidence to back up my position. Clear proof from the game that these decisions are not based on a tranquil/frantic system. Your only evidence is one small email from Chawkwas that was probably thrown together in a haste to have weak justification for Shepard's appearance changing based on his actions. And this evidence doesn't hold up when compared to all of the actions in the game that clearly contradict it.

It is not the best explanation since it does not hold up at all. Less than an hour into the game you can make choices that contradict it. You're going to have to do better to convince me that BioWare's writers actually designed these choices around a tranquil/frantic system.

Sorry, buddy, but if the "small email" can't convince you, I can neither.

However, you are ranting. About truth, evidence, inconsistensy and vague ideas.

I rant only about that "small e-mail".

Have a tranquil cigarette.

If you're going to continue to deny the evidence that disproves the email, then I guess I can't convince you either.

No you can't. Because the BioWare's e-mail actually negates all your "evidence".

Besides, for any of your piece of "evidence", I can bringup 5 times as many pieces, that support the e-mail, my undestanding of the e-mail, and my understanding of the paragon/renegade system regarless of the e-mail. In fact, I've given you an explanation of your examples that shows that they fall well with my understanding of paragon/renegade system. You simply ignored that explanation and re-stated that those are the examples that my understanding of paragon/renegade system sucks.

Have another tranquil cigarette.

[Zulu_DFA]

KnotEngaged wrote...

Geez this thread's still going? Clearly the trolls were able to successfully draw out some talimancers.

BioWare, listen here! Ditch your sucking paragon/renegade system for ME3. Instead, call the red scale "Troll", and the blue scale "Talimancer". That'll do away with all the ambiguity and misinterpretation!

[CmdrFenix83]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Look. TIM just gave me the best ship in the galaxy to ride. Why did he forget to provide me with all sorts of best equipment? Because necessity to go "do missions" for upgrades is a gameplay mechanic. I see no metagaming here metagaming is checking out for consequenses of your decisions, then reversing them if you don't like the result. No long-term consequences from decisions made at Tali's trial are known as of now. I made my decisions. If I'll be revesing them when I see their impact in ME3, that'll be metagaming. And my Giant Douchebag Shepard isn't supposed to help any particular individuals. He was an Alliance officer once, then he was killed in action. Now he is Cerberus operative. That's about it.

That's the point, though.  You're just assuming there's upgrades on some ancient Quarian colony because the game itself has just given you upgrades at every turn.  You're essentially admitting that you went there for the upgrades.  What are the odds of finding new tech on a planet that hasn't had anyone living on it in 300 years?  Short answer:  Metagame knowledge. 

Metagaming isn't "reversing decisions because you know the effects."  Metagaming is making your character make decisions based on knowledge that the character does not have.  That's all.  Your character should have no logical reasoning to think that the Quarian group on Haestrom with Tali would provide any useful tech.  Yet you went there, despite hating her, because that's what you, the player, thought.  Metagaming in a nutshell.

I'll live with the decisions my characters made.  Mordin died on my first playthrough, I'll live with that.  That's not the point of this discussion, though.  The point is that some people are saying it isn't a douche move to turn in the evidence.  In that case, it seems that you agree.

[cipher_Cero]

thedoncarnage wrote...

@cipher_Cero

It's good you brought this up because I've seen this debate tossed around in other threads. This is a little off topic, but since you seem a pretty civil dude I'll bite.

cipher_Cero wrote...

I'm still iffy on what makes Rael'Zorah a war criminal. I'm not saying I disagree or agree, but there are several things here that complicate that. A war crime is defined as the murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war.

1) The geth used for experiments were not prisoners. They were disabled components that were repaired, reactivated, and networked.

By networking the reanimated geth the quarian scientists made them sentient again. Self aware. Capable of free will. They were performing experiments on sentient beings against their will.

2) Geth (particularly heretics) do not sense trauma, pain, or any sort of emotion. They also have no sense of ethics or morals, which would render them completely unaffected to their plight.

While it's true they don't sense pain the geth do have the other characteristics you listed. Conversations with Legion demonstrate the geth have a sense of morality and ethics, albiet their social norms are very alien to those of us organics. The geth ideals of self-determination are an example of this. As for emotion... that's more tricky. I think it's implied by Legion's dialogue about his N7 armor that he is beginning to evolve emotions but doesn't know it yet. But that's just my interpretation.

3) The shared memories of geth/heretics prevents them from going through any sort of "death" provided they were ever connected to the network. The platform housing those components simply gets destroyed, but an infinite number of copies can be made of whatever that geth recorded.

In effect, you're performing weapons tests on a somewhat more capable LOKI mech that never actually dies or gets hurt.

Although not much has been revealed about how the Geth interact with each other over interstellar distances I do think destruction = death for most platforms. Legion says that it takes a conscious effort for him to connect to the rest of his people (hence why he needs EDI's assistance when downloading data.) With that taken into account, if Legion were to be destroyed while not uplinked I think he would be permanently dead. Likewise Legion pointed out that when Shepard destroyed the data hub "cities" on Virmire he was actually killing thousands of heretics.

If a geth expert here thinks I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

In regards to ethics and morals, I was actually thinking to a comment that Legion makes on his loyalty mission. If you suggest that rewriting the heretics is unethical (as opposed to them just being machines), he does remark that they "do not share your pity, remorse, or morals" making reference to them having joined the Reapers. Something to that effect. This, of course, only referring to the heretics who are not nearly as complex as Legion.

Their sentience depends on how many runtimes are networked with each other and are present on each mobile platform. More runtimes means that they can delegate some to perform lower-level tasks such as basic motor function, freeing up bandwidth for reasoning. If I recall correctly, the heretics on the Alarei were localized, so it's hard to say if they were ever able to extend the network outside of it once they'd taken over.

As far as I know, as long as a heretic geth is networked it's sharing data with whatever it's connected to, particularly if it's connected to a hub. The platform is destroyed, but the shared data and experiences is simply downloaded to a new one when the need arises, which is what was happening on the heretic station in the Phoenix Massing.
Legion's case is certainly unique, though. He's the only geth specifically stated in game to house that many runtimes at once.

It's hard to say because their degree of sentience falls into question. They're still conceptually analogous to VI, except they can increase in complexity when networked. Like how a LOKI mech is smart enough to actively seek you out, find you, aim, use a weapon, and detect when friendly units are destroyed, which a singular mobile platform is able to do.

[Internet Kraken]

Zulu_DFA wrote...



No you can't. Because the BioWare's e-mail actually negates all your "evidence".

Except it doesn't. My original point was that the paragon/renegade system was inconsistent. You claimed it was linked to a tranquil/frantic system, I pointed out several examples that disproved this. We're going in a circle here.

Besides, for any of your piece of "evidence", I can bringup 5 times as many pieces, that support the e-mail, my undestanding of the e-mail, and my understanding of the paragon/renegade system regarless of the e-mail.

This only proves my point that the system is inconsistent. It constantly flip-flops, changing what would be considered renegade in one situation to paragon. For example, constantly second-guessing everything the Illusive Man says and having no faith in him normally nets you paragon points. Yet on the Collector Ship, saying that he probably isn't betraying you is suddenly the paragon option.

In fact, I've given you an explanation of your examples that shows that they fall well with my understanding of paragon/renegade system. You simply ignored that explanation and re-stated that those are the examples that my understanding of paragon/renegade system sucks.

I didn't ignore what you said. I pointed out how what you said was wrong. You claimed that the end result of these frantic paragon actions resulted in tranquility, hence making them paragon even though they initially appear to be frantic. I pointed out that this is not true. Punching Zaeed in the face does not provide tranquility, either as an immediate or end result. It is completley unnecessary, yet is considered a paragon option. Your understanding of the system does not "suck". I don't blame you for trying to make sense of it. I'm just pointing out that it does not follow the tranquil/frantic system.

[Zulu_DFA]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Look. TIM just gave me the best ship in the galaxy to ride. Why did he forget to provide me with all sorts of best equipment? Because necessity to go "do missions" for upgrades is a gameplay mechanic. I see no metagaming here metagaming is checking out for consequenses of your decisions, then reversing them if you don't like the result. No long-term consequences from decisions made at Tali's trial are known as of now. I made my decisions. If I'll be revesing them when I see their impact in ME3, that'll be metagaming. And my Giant Douchebag Shepard isn't supposed to help any particular individuals. He was an Alliance officer once, then he was killed in action. Now he is Cerberus operative. That's about it.

That's the point, though.  You're just assuming there's upgrades on some ancient Quarian colony because the game itself has just given you upgrades at every turn.  You're essentially admitting that you went there for the upgrades.  What are the odds of finding new tech on a planet that hasn't had anyone living on it in 300 years?  Short answer:  Metagame knowledge. 

Metagaming isn't "reversing decisions because you know the effects."  Metagaming is making your character make decisions based on knowledge that the character does not have. 

Ok, let's call it metagaming too, if you like. But you seem to be unaware of the fact, that *my* character's freedom of choice is too limited due to metagame (real-life) reasons. If *my* character could make any decision, instead of just three in any give situation, then my team for the Omega-4 Relay mission would've consisted of Zaeed-like characters only. With best equipment in the Galaxy. *My* character would've blown Alarei, or told the Admirals to destroy it. *My* charcter would've sent the Grunt to Cerberus for study. *My* character would've used a renegade interrupt to prevent Nassana's death. There is too many limitations of what *my* character can do for your point (that I can skip recruiting Tali, if I don't like her) to be valid.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 mars 2010 - 01:12 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Internet Kraken wrote...

This only proves my point that the system is inconsistent. It constantly flip-flops, changing what would be considered renegade in one situation to paragon. For example, constantly second-guessing everything the Illusive Man says and having no faith in him normally nets you paragon points. Yet on the Collector Ship, saying that he probably isn't betraying you is suddenly the paragon option.
I didn't ignore what you said. I pointed out how what you said was wrong. You claimed that the end result of these frantic paragon actions resulted in tranquility, hence making them paragon even though they initially appear to be frantic. I pointed out that this is not true. Punching Zaeed in the face does not provide tranquility, either as an immediate or end result. It is completley unnecessary, yet is considered a paragon option. Your understanding of the system does not "suck". I don't blame you for trying to make sense of it. I'm just pointing out that it does not follow the tranquil/frantic system.

OK, to sum up. You state that two examples, that, in your opinion, fall out of the system prove that the system does not exist at all. I state that the system exists, and in 80% the choices/actions/lines clearly fit in it, in some 15% they fit but not so well, and maybe 5% of instances when paragon/renegade points are awarded are exceptions (maybe there are no exceptions at all).

BTW I'm under impression that you include some lines, that do not result in paragon/renegade points, into your pile of "evidence".

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 mars 2010 - 01:09 .

[UsagiVindaloo]

I must admit, I still don't understand why people are phrasing the decision as "stick by Tali" vs. "BE AN UTTER DOUCHE AND SCREW HER OVER."



To me, the decision was a much more nuanced and difficult one: stick by my friend, or tell the truth and make sure everyone is on the same page? I love Tali to bits and bits and bits, don't get me wrong, but I also can't stand people keeping secrets, it's a pet peeve of mine. While Rael's exile and eradication is very unfortunate, the quarian people have the right to know everything and make decisions with every bit of knowledge available.



On the other hand, making Tali sad hurts me. ;_;



I think it comes down to a matter of personal interpretation: what are you there for? To make Tali happy, or to exonerate her/find out what the heck happened? If you're in the former camp, the choice is simple; in the latter camp, not so much. And each of us has a different take on the whole thing.





For myself, I took the best compromise... I used Charm to get her exonerated, then quietly took Hal'Gerrar (?) aside and told him the truth. I made Tali happy, I got her exonerated, and I made sure that someone, at least, knew the truth about what happened... ideally he can use what he learned to make decisions in the future.

[Mnemnosyne]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*My* character would've used a renegade interrupt to prevent Nassana's death.

Ok, really off-topic here, but...why?  She's a self-absorbed, dangerous individual who seems to care for nothing but her own rise to power.  She's certainly not the type who values service or assistance, so she would never feel as though she actually owes you anything, and her actions seem to indicate that she'd kill you at the first opportunity just because she's paranoid enough.  I don't see how she would ever be useful or helpful to you personally, or to your mission.

[UsagiVindaloo]

Koyasha wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*My* character would've used a renegade interrupt to prevent Nassana's death.

Ok, really off-topic here, but...why?  She's a self-absorbed, dangerous individual who seems to care for nothing but her own rise to power.  She's certainly not the type who values service or assistance, so she would never feel as though she actually owes you anything, and her actions seem to indicate that she'd kill you at the first opportunity just because she's paranoid enough.  I don't see how she would ever be useful or helpful to you personally, or to your mission.

To be fair, I wanted to use a Paragon interrupt to save her life myself... not because anything you said is wrong (you hit it right on the money) but because my Shepard is always looking for non-violent and peaceful solutions, even if it means letting some jerks live. ;-)

As for a Renegade... well, if I recall, she paid exceptionally well in the first game for killing her sister... >.>

[Internet Kraken]

Zulu_DFA wrote...



OK, to sum up. You state that two examples, that, in your opinion, fall out of the system prove that the system does not exist at all. I state that the system exists, and in 80% the choices/actions/lines clearly fit in it, in some 15% they fit but not so well, and maybe 5% of instances when paragon/renegade points are awarded are exceptions (maybe there are no exceptions at all).

First of all, those statistics are clearly made up. Second, there are more examples of this than just those two. I'm just not going to list every single dialogue option as it's not neccesary to prove that the system is inconsistent. At this point it just feels like you are going to deny whatever I say just becuase you are clinging to this idea that the paragon/renegade system is not inconsistent.

BTW I'm under impression that you include some lines, that do not result in paragon/renegade points, into your pile of "evidence".

That may be true for some of the examples I have listed throughout this thread. I can't be sure if all of them link to paragon points, though being on the top of the screen usually suggests that they would. However others are directly linked to paragon QTE's and blue dialogue options, which always net paragon points.



But at this point I guess we just have to agree to disagree. You won't see that the system is inconsistent. I won't see that the system is tranquil/frantic. Despite all this bickering I doubt that either of us have convinced the other of anything.

[Zulu_DFA]

Koyasha wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

*My* character would've used a renegade interrupt to prevent Nassana's death.

Ok, really off-topic here, but...why?  She's a self-absorbed, dangerous individual who seems to care for nothing but her own rise to power.  She's certainly not the type who values service or assistance, so she would never feel as though she actually owes you anything, and her actions seem to indicate that she'd kill you at the first opportunity just because she's paranoid enough.  I don't see how she would ever be useful or helpful to you personally, or to your mission.

Maybe I was suddenly feeling sympathetic with a person, that is actually under attack. Or I wanted her to pay me for that (the nice conversation was going in that direction anyway). Or maybe I felt it a bit offencive to kill anybody in my presence without my approval. Or I wanted to kill her myself. Or maybe I simply didn't know what I wanted with her at the moment, but the assassin ripped me of the opportunity to make up my mind, which I would have prevented if the game gave me a chance.

[Karstedt]

Define betrayal...

[CmdrFenix83]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ok, let's call it metagaming too, if you like. But you seem to be unaware of the fact, that *my* character's freedom of choice is too limited due to metagame (real-life) reasons. If *my* character could make any decision, instead of just three in any give situation, then my team for the Omega-4 Relay mission would've consisted of Zaeed-like characters only. With best equipment in the Galaxy. *My* character would've blown Alarei, or told the Admirals to destroy it. *My* charcter would've sent the Grunt to Cerberus for study. *My* character would've used a renegade interrupt to prevent Nassana's death. There is too many limitations of what *my* character can do for your point (that I can skip recruiting Tali, if I don't like her) to be valid.

The fact that the game isn't a PnP RPG doesn't excuse metagaming.  It's a cRPG, you're limited in what you can do, essentially.  That's just the issue with cRPGs in general.  The game *does* allow you to skip recruiting her.  You can't go recruit an optional character and then come here and **** that she's shoved down your throat.  If you made the same case for Miranda, I'd agree with you.  She's forced on you from the start, constantly shoves her opinion in your face, and does nothing but **** about the way the mission's going.  However, that's not what you're saying. 

You're making a baseless accusation and then justifying it by saying 'well there might be upgrades there, so my Shepard will go recruit someone optional that he hates'.  You simply can't do that and then expect to claim she's being shoved down your throat.  Now, if you're claiming the forumites might be shoving her down your throat, I'd probably agree.  As much as I love her character, I don't go near that monster of a thread.  This argument would hold weight.  Claiming the game itself does this is just flat out not true.

[GenericPlayer2]

All the loyalty arguments go out the window when you select the rally or charismatic options. If you use that argument, then get her exiled. She says she would prefer that when you find the evidence on the Alarei. But no, people go for the charisma option because they think they know better. Well I go for the trial exposure because I believe I know better.

What happened here is not a victimless crime, and it was not an accident. An accident would have been if someone did not intentionally violate protocol with their experiments. Someone has to pay for it. I make sure that the culprit is named. 

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 06 mars 2010 - 01:44 .

[Pathetisad]

The Angry One wrote...

Is it ever said what's done with the evidence if you don't show it?.

Do you ever actually read the messages that Kelly keeps telling you about 

[Zulu_DFA]

Internet Kraken wrote...
But at this point I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.