103 réponses à ce sujet

[goatman42]

pacer90 wrote...

Never. The renegade speech is too damn good.

Yeah, even though I'm Paragon, after seeing the Renegade speech, I wished I could have used that instead.

[Qwepir]

Lord Coake wrote...

Qwepir wrote...

I always thought the rally the crowd option was pretty dumb. Shoulda gone like this:


Kal'Reegar- "You'll have to exile me too!"
Veetor- "And me!"
Admiral Koris- "Alright. You, you, and you. Out."

That would start a riot.  Veetor is an innocent bystandard, traumatized but recovering and recently reutrned from Pilgimige in good standing, and Kal'Reeger is an unshakeably loyal Marine whos only possible crime is being too loyal to a pack of politicians.

Korris could probably have both of them detained, Veetor censured, and Kal demoted (or outright forced out of the Marines) for interfering with an oficial inquiry, but exiling them would be impossible.  Veetor and Reeger could choose to leave the fleet in protest, which would be an awesome gesture in itself, but thats about as far as it could go.

Would have been cool it it had gone that way, I'd have loved to have Reeger as a party member.

Then how about
"No. We're not exiling you, we're exiling her. If you leave, it's by your own free will."

[CmdrFenix83]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Truth--it would be more of a decision if you could present the evidence and still win Tali's loyalty (something along the lines of Zaeed's loyalty--you can still win it even if you go against his wishes and save the colonists through a persuasion check).

THIS is how the paragon-renegade should have been implemented in the trial. Not some stupid speech (that sounds epic, btw...) that somehow makes the player have their cake and eat it too. The way it's implemented seems to me like an obvious ploy to quell Tali fans.

They tell you before you've even gone to the Alarei that the entire trial is a farce.  3 of the 5 options afterward allow you to call the Admiralty Board on their BS.  Do not understand how everone calls it a copout... If you want a copout, use Zaeed's loyalty mission as a better example.  You turn against him in order to save lives, and after he points a gun at you, you can be like "I don't like you" and he'll be all "Okies, I pway nice..." and you get it back.  *That* was a copout.

[Internet Kraken]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Truth--it would be more of a decision if you could present the evidence and still win Tali's loyalty (something along the lines of Zaeed's loyalty--you can still win it even if you go against his wishes and save the colonists through a persuasion check).

THIS is how the paragon-renegade should have been implemented in the trial. Not some stupid speech (that sounds epic, btw...) that somehow makes the player have their cake and eat it too. The way it's implemented seems to me like an obvious ploy to quell Tali fans.

They tell you before you've even gone to the Alarei that the entire trial is a farce.  3 of the 5 options afterward allow you to call the Admiralty Board on their BS.  Do not understand how everone calls it a copout... If you want a copout, use Zaeed's loyalty mission as a better example.  You turn against him in order to save lives, and after he points a gun at you, you can be like "I don't like you" and he'll be all "Okies, I pway nice..." and you get it back.  *That* was a copout.

That doesn't change the fact that what is otherwise a difficult decision is compeltey undermined by the presence of the paragon/renegade checks.

Modifié par Internet Kraken, 24 mars 2010 - 02:20 .

[FlyinElk212]

Internet Kraken wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Truth--it would be more of a decision if you could present the evidence and still win Tali's loyalty (something along the lines of Zaeed's loyalty--you can still win it even if you go against his wishes and save the colonists through a persuasion check).

THIS is how the paragon-renegade should have been implemented in the trial. Not some stupid speech (that sounds epic, btw...) that somehow makes the player have their cake and eat it too. The way it's implemented seems to me like an obvious ploy to quell Tali fans.

They tell you before you've even gone to the Alarei that the entire trial is a farce.  3 of the 5 options afterward allow you to call the Admiralty Board on their BS.  Do not understand how everone calls it a copout... If you want a copout, use Zaeed's loyalty mission as a better example.  You turn against him in order to save lives, and after he points a gun at you, you can be like "I don't like you" and he'll be all "Okies, I pway nice..." and you get it back.  *That* was a copout.

That doesn't change the fact that what is otherwise a difficult decision is compeltey undermined the presence of the paragon/renegade checks.

Precisely, Kraken got it right. Simply because the trial is a farce doesn't mean that the Paragon/Renegade options are justified. It's STILL by far the greatest choice you could possibly have: when you can get Tali's loyalty AND still save her from exile, why in the WORLD would a player willingly choose the other two options?

It trivializes the whole thing--no one will spend minutes agonizing which choice to take and which consequences they can live with...because there ARE none with the Par/Ren choices! And yes, while Zaeed's "Paragon save" thing in his mission is also a cop-out in my book, it at LEAST better implements Bioware's horrible Par/Ren system (in that it allows Paragons to still earn Zaeed's loyalty if they want. Not having that presents an unfair advantage to renegades).

If you ask me though, the whole Paragon/Renegade thing should be completely left out of the loyalty missions. Gaining a character's loyalty should be a question of morality- do I really let the citizens burn and die just for Zaeed's loyalty? Do I really banish Tali from her people forever just for HER loyalty?

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 24 mars 2010 - 02:16 .

[CmdrFenix83]

Internet Kraken wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Truth--it would be more of a decision if you could present the evidence and still win Tali's loyalty (something along the lines of Zaeed's loyalty--you can still win it even if you go against his wishes and save the colonists through a persuasion check).

THIS is how the paragon-renegade should have been implemented in the trial. Not some stupid speech (that sounds epic, btw...) that somehow makes the player have their cake and eat it too. The way it's implemented seems to me like an obvious ploy to quell Tali fans.

They tell you before you've even gone to the Alarei that the entire trial is a farce.  3 of the 5 options afterward allow you to call the Admiralty Board on their BS.  Do not understand how everone calls it a copout... If you want a copout, use Zaeed's loyalty mission as a better example.  You turn against him in order to save lives, and after he points a gun at you, you can be like "I don't like you" and he'll be all "Okies, I pway nice..." and you get it back.  *That* was a copout.

That doesn't change the fact that what is otherwise a difficult decision is compeltey undermined the presence of the paragon/renegade checks.

Except, it was never a difficult decision to begin with.  Rael made a mistake, he paid for it with his life.  The entire trial was made just to push political agenda.  You see this long before you leave for the Alarei.  Unless you honestly believe handing over the evidence is in the best interest to the Quarians/Galaxy, there's zero reason *not* to call them on their BS.  The Renegade speach was far better at this, but they both do it quite well. 

The decision to accept her exile is just Shepard being too spineless to call them on their crap.

[FlyinElk212]

@ CmndFenix83--

Sorry for not quoting you, but I've posted my thought process above your response (check it out, dawg!!!). I understand where you're coming from--you're saying that from a storyline/character standpoint, it would be extremely weak of Commander Shepard to not call out the council. And I agree.

However, why couldn't Shepard simply do this when he stated that he had no new evidence? Or why couldn't the Paragon/Renegade speeches simply not have Tali exonerated from exiled? It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

[Ahglock]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...



Except, it was never a difficult decision to begin with.  Rael made a mistake, he paid for it with his life.  The entire trial was made just to push political agenda.  You see this long before you leave for the Alarei.  Unless you honestly believe handing over the evidence is in the best interest to the Quarians/Galaxy, there's zero reason *not* to call them on their BS.  The Renegade speach was far better at this, but they both do it quite well. 

The decision to accept her exile is just Shepard being too spineless to call them on their crap.

Sure.  But I think the point is, whether the error starts at the begining of the mission when you find out its a farce or at the end of the mission because they let you talk your way out of it is irrelevant.  Not having your decisions have actual consequences is bad.  They shouldn't design the mission so the entire trial is a farce so you feel justified to paragon out of it.  Choices you make should have actual consequences beyond seeing some guy in a bar in the next game with 2 lines of dialogue.  So, basically it would be better if maybe Tali had screwed up, or you find out that someone had screwed up by sending a live part but you don't know who, and it easily could have been Tali.  Now the trial isn't a farce,it is a real trial and you have to mkae a tough choice, get her exiled but loyal or lie/manufacture evidence so she does not get exiled but lose her loyalty. 

[FlyinElk212]

@ CmndFenix83--

Sorry for not quoting you, but I've posted my thought process above your response (check it out, dawg!!!). I understand where you're coming from--you're saying that from a storyline/character standpoint, it would be extremely weak of Commander Shepard to not call out the council. And I agree.

However, why couldn't Shepard simply do this when he stated that he had no new evidence? Or why couldn't the Paragon/Renegade speeches simply not have Tali exonerated from exiled? It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

[Raphael diSanto]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Truth--it would be more of a decision if you could present the evidence and still win Tali's loyalty (something along the lines of Zaeed's loyalty--you can still win it even if you go against his wishes and save the colonists through a persuasion check).

THIS is how the paragon-renegade should have been implemented in the trial. Not some stupid speech (that sounds epic, btw...) that somehow makes the player have their cake and eat it too. The way it's implemented seems to me like an obvious ploy to quell Tali fans.

They tell you before you've even gone to the Alarei that the entire trial is a farce.  3 of the 5 options afterward allow you to call the Admiralty Board on their BS.  Do not understand how everone calls it a copout... If you want a copout, use Zaeed's loyalty mission as a better example.  You turn against him in order to save lives, and after he points a gun at you, you can be like "I don't like you" and he'll be all "Okies, I pway nice..." and you get it back.  *That* was a copout.

This, absolutely.

Zaeed's paragon "solution" felt seriously cheap to me. Bad writing from the team. The difference in dialogue between the successful Paragon and the failed Paragon is -one- line.. And the lines aren't even all that different. Zaeed would not have been convinced by the blue paragon option to retain his loyalty. Or.. if he is/was, then the non-blue paragon dialogue line should have convinced him just as well.

The blue paragon dialogue should have felt significantly more convince and influential, especially when dealing with a man like Zaeed. BioWare have some great dialogue writers on their team, but this one felt rushed.

[CmdrFenix83]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

@ CmndFenix83--
Sorry for not quoting you, but I've posted my thought process above your response (check it out, dawg!!!). I understand where you're coming from--you're saying that from a storyline/character standpoint, it would be extremely weak of Commander Shepard to not call out the council. And I agree.
However, why couldn't Shepard simply do this when he stated that he had no new evidence? Or why couldn't the Paragon/Renegade speeches simply not have Tali exonerated from exiled? It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

So the problem is the way the entire trial was written?  You just simply *wanted* a very hard choice, and the way it was set up fromt he minute you start the trial before the Alarei was the problem?

[Internet Kraken]

FlyinElk212 wrote...



It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

This. I don't get why BioWare bothers making choices that could be difficult, but then puts in a way to completley bypass their consequences. Thus most situations have what feels like a best way to solve them.It's not like you have to do anything difficult either. One can easily pass all paragon/renegade checks without even having to think about their points.

[Raphael diSanto]

Well, if you don't take the Renegade option, you don't get this classic moment.



That's worth it for me, right there.

[Raphael diSanto]

Internet Kraken wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

This. I don't get why BioWare bothers making choices that could be difficult, but then puts in a way to completley bypass their consequences. Thus most situations have what feels like a best way to solve them.It's not like you have to do anything difficult either. One can easily pass all paragon/renegade checks without even having to think about their points.

It's the illusion of choice again. BioWare are the ones telling the story. We're just along to steer little bits of it. I mean, personally, I'm fine with that, but I know a lot of people aren't.

[Ahglock]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

@ CmndFenix83--
Sorry for not quoting you, but I've posted my thought process above your response (check it out, dawg!!!). I understand where you're coming from--you're saying that from a storyline/character standpoint, it would be extremely weak of Commander Shepard to not call out the council. And I agree.
However, why couldn't Shepard simply do this when he stated that he had no new evidence? Or why couldn't the Paragon/Renegade speeches simply not have Tali exonerated from exiled? It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

So the problem is the way the entire trial was written?  You just simply *wanted* a very hard choice, and the way it was set up fromt he minute you start the trial before the Alarei was the problem?

I can't speak for others, but that is my problem.  I want consequences with my choices especially the bigger choices.  If option 1 threaten the suspect, and option 2 be nice to the suspect both get you the information where the red sand is being stored why even give a choice, you get the info anyways.  Mayne option 1, he leads you into a trap and option 2 he gives you the info you need.  and which choice works best should be different for each character and things about his personality and reputation can tip you off to which would work best. 

[Internet Kraken]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

This. I don't get why BioWare bothers making choices that could be difficult, but then puts in a way to completley bypass their consequences. Thus most situations have what feels like a best way to solve them.It's not like you have to do anything difficult either. One can easily pass all paragon/renegade checks without even having to think about their points.

It's the illusion of choice again. BioWare are the ones telling the story. We're just along to steer little bits of it. I mean, personally, I'm fine with that, but I know a lot of people aren't.

I understand that. But this is why I don't understand why they make these options in the first place. If they are going to make what they clearly consider to be the "best" option, then why even give us the other ones? Why put in the loyalty conflicts if we're just supposed to magically talk our way to the best outcome? Seems like a waste.

Though maybe they will surprise me in Mass Effect 3. There is a big difference between all of the endings to Tali's loyalty mission. Hopefully this will carry over into Mass Effect 3, though it probably won't.

[Soma Holiday]

I wouldn't dare DREAM of getting her exiled! Then she would have to stay on my ship forever, which would really really suck because I know bioware won't give me the option to put her in the garbage shoot and launch her into space if I do have to keep her on board...

[Akrylik]

the only reason anyone would intentionally present the information proving tali's innocence would be to ****** her off seeing as you would gain NOTHING other than that by doing so. leaving only 1 other general outcome, don't present the evidence, and since the charm/intim choices effectively do this, they undermine the desire to select the white paragon or encite crowd option. Since this is late in the game where charm/intim options are rarely grayed out in loyalty missions, the most prominent outcome is tali's loyalty without exile, which really kills the dramatic significance of accomplishing it.

[Internet Kraken]

Akrylik wrote...

the only reason anyone would intentionally present the information proving tali's innocence would be to ****** her off seeing as you would gain NOTHING other than that by doing so. leaving only 1 other general outcome, don't present the evidence, and since the charm/intim choices effectively do this, they undermine the desire to select the white paragon or encite crowd option. Since this is late in the game where charm/intim options are rarely grayed out in loyalty missions, the most prominent outcome is tali's loyalty without exile, which really kills the dramatic significance of accomplishing it.

I present the evidence becuase I'm thinking of what is best for Tali and the Quarians. Frankly I can't stand the idea of hiding this evidence that is clearly important to the debate over the war. Plus letting Tali get herself exiled is foolish. I don't expect many people to agree with my opinnion, but I just want to make it clear that I believed there are reasons to show the evidence other than pissing Tali off.

[Akrylik]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

It's not the actual choice we're upset about--it's the outcome of the choice that we feel is weak (being that it's clearly the best option and completely makes the other options seem pointless).

This. I don't get why BioWare bothers making choices that could be difficult, but then puts in a way to completley bypass their consequences. Thus most situations have what feels like a best way to solve them.It's not like you have to do anything difficult either. One can easily pass all paragon/renegade checks without even having to think about their points.

It's the illusion of choice again. BioWare are the ones telling the story. We're just along to steer little bits of it. I mean, personally, I'm fine with that, but I know a lot of people aren't.

I understand that. But this is why I don't understand why they make these options in the first place. If they are going to make what they clearly consider to be the "best" option, then why even give us the other ones? Why put in the loyalty conflicts if we're just supposed to magically talk our way to the best outcome? Seems like a waste.

Though maybe they will surprise me in Mass Effect 3. There is a big difference between all of the endings to Tali's loyalty mission. Hopefully this will carry over into Mass Effect 3, though it probably won't.

the illusion of choice i presume is present due to the sequel issue. in order to balance sequels, every plot significant choice does not necisarily have to be similar in approach, but outcome. take the council fate for instance, if they live, they deny reaper existence, if they die, the new human council denies reaper existence as well. its all moot point to the significance of either choice seeing as they both don't differ much in effect. IF the council had proclaimed reaper existence however, hypothetically set for either outcome, the plot would be severely manipulated, effectively branching off the possibilities creating different versions of the ME plot, when we all know there can only be one and only one, which we cannot truly manipulate ourselves until the very end (the very end being the point where Bio doesn't have to worry about future installments and plot inbalances, hence the finale to the ME trilogy being ME3.)

[FlyinElk212]

@ CmndFenix & Ahglock & Raphael & Kraken-- (lol...I'm clearly just lazy)

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't understand why Bioware would hype up that the Mass Effect Series is "a game of choice, where your actions have consequences on the entire galaxy" if they plan on giving us options that don't adhere to this statement.

Choosing the Par/Ren option in Tali's trial makes her A. Not Exiled and B. Loyal to Shepard, thus more likely to survive the mission. How does that action have any consequences? From my standpoint, it does not.

And like I said before, CmndFenix, there are ways to encorporate your story elements into the difficult decisions players desire-- why can't Shepard badmouth the council during his "We have no evidence" choice? To strengthen Shepard's character, he can still STATE that the trial is a complete joke and shut down the council...just don't reward the player with no consequences in doing so.

If they do that, then where's the "action's consequences" they preach on and on about?

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 24 mars 2010 - 03:02 .

[Akrylik]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

the only reason anyone would intentionally present the information proving tali's innocence would be to ****** her off seeing as you would gain NOTHING other than that by doing so. leaving only 1 other general outcome, don't present the evidence, and since the charm/intim choices effectively do this, they undermine the desire to select the white paragon or encite crowd option. Since this is late in the game where charm/intim options are rarely grayed out in loyalty missions, the most prominent outcome is tali's loyalty without exile, which really kills the dramatic significance of accomplishing it.

I present the evidence becuase I'm thinking of what is best for Tali and the Quarians. Frankly I can't stand the idea of hiding this evidence that is clearly important to the debate over the war. Plus letting Tali get herself exiled is foolish. I don't expect many people to agree with my opinnion, but I just want to make it clear that I believed there are reasons to show the evidence other than pissing Tali off.

in other words, you are parenting tali by making her own decisions for advancement of the Quarians in the war effort in reclaiming the homeworld, that can all be well and good in the grand scheme of this subplot conflict but in relations to Shep's collector conflict a disgruntled engineer is not beneficial, hence it being called a loyalty mission, the sole purpose of which is to gain the loyalty of a party member. normally it would be a wise choice to present the information to the trial, but if i know bioware they will never allow a charm/intim option to be inferior to the options on the right side of the wheel, meaning any future events concerning the quarian geth conflict are supposed to be easier with red/blue choices. I see your logic but the recurring game mechanics say otherwise, as it would be superficial to assume it would be detrimental to the quarians without that information for the war effort, IF you plan on encouraging them to go to war, which im just going to guess is going to be one of those big subplot choices in ME3.

[Internet Kraken]

Akrylik wrote...



in other words, you are parenting tali by making her own decisions for advancement of the Quarians in the war effort in reclaiming the homeworld, that can all be well and good in the grand scheme of this subplot conflict but in relations to Shep's collector conflict a disgruntled engineer is not beneficial, hence it being called a loyalty mission, the sole purpose of which is to gain the loyalty of a party member. normally it would be a wise choice to present the information to the trial, but if i know bioware they will never allow a charm/intim option to be inferior to the options on the right side of the wheel, meaning any future events concerning the quarian geth conflict are supposed to be easier with red/blue choices. I see your logic but the recurring game mechanics say otherwise, as it would be superficial to assume it would be detrimental to the quarians without that information for the war effort, IF you plan on encouraging them to go to war, which im just going to guess is going to be one of those big subplot choices in ME3.

Now hold on, when did I say I was advancing the Quarian war effort? I wasn't trying to push the Quarian's into war. I was just supplying them with the information I think is necessary for them to make a proper decision. The people need to know the lengths their leaders are willing to go to in this war. For the record, my Shepard always supports peace anyways.



And I think that making my decision based solely on Tali in that situation, when it clearly affects many people other than her, would be wrong. I'm willing to sacrifice any teams loyalty if it allows me to properly address a much more important situation. Again, you don't have to agree with my opinion on this matter. I just wanted to make it clear that I hand over the evidence for reasons other than pissing Tali off.



As for what you said about the red/blue choices being the "right" ones, I'd hate to say it but I agree. I do get the impression that these are always the "best" choices, and that choosing anything other than them when they are available is the "wrong" choice. But when I handed over the evidence I was surprised by just how different the outcome was. Judging from the admiral's reactions, Shepard's words may have had a much bigger impact. I hope that this is a rare case in which the red/blue options do not magically solve everything and that they do have a downside. Unfortunately, this probably won't be true.

[Raphael diSanto]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

@ CmndFenix & Ahglock & Raphael & Kraken-- (lol...I'm clearly just lazy)

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't understand why Bioware would hype up that the Mass Effect Series is "a game of choice, where your actions have consequences on the entire galaxy" if they plan on giving us options that don't adhere to this statement.

Choosing the Par/Ren option in Tali's trial makes her A. Not Exiled and B. Loyal to Shepard, thus more likely to survive the mission. How does that action have any consequences? From my standpoint, it does not.

And like I said before, CmndFenix, there are ways to encorporate your story elements into the difficult decisions players desire-- why can't Shepard badmouth the council during his "We have no evidence" choice? To strengthen Shepard's character, he can still STATE that the trial is a complete joke and shut down the council...just don't reward the player with no consequences in doing so.

If they do that, then where's the "action's consequences" they preach on and on about?

Honestly? I believe they hype it because they know it sells games.

And to use the example of fiding information from the suspect in Thane's loyalty mission - That goes back to something BioWare have always stated... Shepard is a hero. He will always do "X" (whatever X happens to be) .. What you, as the player get to decide is not whether or not Shepard accomplishes task X, but -how- he accomplishes it.

[Akrylik]

Internet Kraken wrote...


Now hold on, when did I say I was advancing the Quarian war effort? I wasn't trying to push the Quarian's into war. I was just supplying them with the information I think is necessary for them to make a proper decision. The people need to know the lengths their leaders are willing to go to in this war. For the record, my Shepard always supports peace anyways.

And I think that making my decision based solely on Tali in that situation, when it clearly affects many people other than her, would be wrong. I'm willing to sacrifice any teams loyalty if it allows me to properly address a much more important situation. Again, you don't have to agree with my opinion on this matter. I just wanted to make it clear that I hand over the evidence for reasons other than pissing Tali off.

As for what you said about the red/blue choices being the "right" ones, I'd hate to say it but I agree. I do get the impression that these are always the "best" choices, and that choosing anything other than them when they are available is the "wrong" choice. But when I handed over the evidence I was surprised by just how different the outcome was. Judging from the admiral's reactions, Shepard's words may have had a much bigger impact. I hope that this is a rare case in which the red/blue options do not magically solve everything and that they do have a downside. Unfortunately, this probably won't be true.

im not entirely sure knowing that Rael was responsible for the reactivation and experimentation of the geth shows any significance to the fact that they were simply reactivated and experimented upon, leaving significant information regardless of who did it. it's not like the ship was destroyed and any such important information is unobtainable without Shep's presentation. in fact after the loyalty mission you get an email stating that the experiments contribute to the quarian's understanding regardless of whatever outcome recieved. the only possible significant variable i can possibly see is that if the quarians discovered Rael was intentionally experimenting on geth the quarians would have a change of heart toward the geth, which is too far fetched for technical plausibility.
Though my bad on assuming your shep supported the war effort, but from Shep's point of view the reason he should be participating in the trial is for Tali, not the quarians. The exploration and retrieval of data from the Alarei should be their utmost concern, which they of course partake. not to mention the fate of 2 races should not necisarily be judged on the effects of the experiments of a few individuals anyway, for the sake of adressing the magnitude of the conflict.
when it all comes to play in ME3, Quarians knowing or not knowing everything was Rael's fault should be insignificant to the grand scheme of the conflict.