131 réponses à ce sujet

[pineappledan]

I played ME1 and ME2 back-to back, and I couldn't help but notice that both times at the end of the game it comes down to a single paragon or renegade option: the paragon option being some sort of idioti choice fueled by either your bleeding heart or your distrust, and the renegade option being the strategically sound option

ME 1 option: council lives or dies?
This is like having the US president being held at gunpoint while their is an atomic bomb located in the white house.  You have the option of defusing the bomb immediately, or trying to save the president, and praying to god you also have time to defuse the bomb. 
now is it just me,or this this option retarded?  who in their right mind would risk not making the best effort possible to save the entire galaxy in favour of saving the lives of a few heads of govenment?  I mean, if your choice means that sovereign succeeds then the whole council is dead anyways, along with everyone else.

ME 2 option: blow it up, or save the base?
you're all familiar with the scenario, so would you seriously give up alien technology because you don't trust the man you're giving it to?  Technology which, for all you know, could be the difference between preservation of every race in the galaxy, or total annihilation?  are you that childish that you would damn every living being because of a grudge? 

I know that a) it's a game, these choices won't REALLy affect gameplay in ME 3, for the sake of not having to write that much.

but seriously, in ME 1 your paragon choice made you an idiot.  In ME 2 your paragon choice made you an idiot AND a ******.  in both cases the only big picture, strategically sensible solution is the renegade option. 

I know this might be a tall order, but couldn't they have made these final decisions a little harder?  maybe something that speaks to your morality and not your common sense?  I mean, that was the whole point of the paragon/renegade choice right?

thoughts?

[Barrendall]

yeah you are assuming by saving that technology it's going to be used responsibly and not cause more chaos than dealing with the Reapers by themselves. I have no idea either way, because up to this point it's all speculation. Are you completely 100% sure that you won't be fighting 2 fronts by turning over that base? Can the technology even be safely used or reverse engineered? I might be wrong and I might be right. "shrug"

[Badpie]

I felt like in ME1 the paragon choices were sometimes a little wussy, but not idiotic. They were far more forceful and less pushover in ME2.



As for the idiotic thing: This is a personal opinion thing. Obviously you played the game as a renegade.



I was mostly paragon with a bit of renegade choices thrown in and was happy with the outcome (I blew the base and told TIM where to shove the pieces). I felt like that was the morally good thing to do as well as the smart thing.



But I do agree that the final decisions were very black and white. Why couldn't we keep the base and turn it over to the Alliance for example?



As for the council in ME1, I saved them. I thought about letting them die so I could save more human lives, and then I realized that the lives I would be saving were the very same soldiers who were meant to do this sort of thing AS THEIR JOB. Casualties suck, but they're a part of war and most soldiers would save the defenseless any day rather than saving their own hides.

[LPPrince]

Here's the justification-



ME1=Killing the Council/Letting them die means the galaxy will not trust you and proper leadership is out the window, which means battling a bunch of Reapers on the way is impossible.



ME2=Sick experiments that killed thousands were performed in that base, and keeping it around is spitting on the bodies and what would've of been their graves by keeping it around to reap the "benefits".

[Badpie]

In the end it all comes down to gut decisions by the player. There's really no way to know how any of it will pan out. Should be interesting.

[enormousmoonboots]

Paragon Shepard is Captain America. If you can't respect Cap, I can't respect you.

[janeym27]

I disagree with that assement. Saving the council doesn't actually affect the outcome with Sovereign (although, I agree, it makes more sense from a strategic point of view to let them perish and focus all your firepower on the Reaper.), and the fallout from losing the Citadel Council politically is far reaching. They are symbolic, and condemming them to death has implications for the wider galaxy. It's like with a president or head of state in a democracy - they are an elected representitive of the people, and in thoery if they die then someone with their ideals and political interests will take their place and lead on, but if they die, that is symbolically earth-shattering for the people they lead. Do you think that people will care you defused a nuke, if you are also the person who let their president get shot? They might, but I'll bet a lot of people would just be angry. Look at the tension and fallout from council death in ME2. Shepard may have been being tactical as a warrior, but politicly a lot of people felt very betrayed by that descision. (again, in that instance I felt like they did need to die, but my point is not everyone will agree)



The Collector Base choice is an interesting one. I decided to blow it on my first playthrough, but this was less to do with my falling out with TIM, as much as I figured a, Reaper technology has only brought badness thus far and could actually prove dangerous, espeically if it fell into the wrong hands (exploded, it can't do this), and b, what are the odds we could actually use their own technology against them in a way that they couldn't turn back around on us? They are thousdands of years old!!! (also, by 'me' and 'us', I mean 'Shepard' and 'The Galaxy'. lol)



Mind you, I think that that's the beauty of choices like these: people interperate the reasoning behind them totally differently. 2 people could make the exactly the same in-game desicions, but for totally different reasons. They might even be at odds with one another as to how to play the game!



I've played a few different paths through the game, but I've never felt like my Shep was 'an idiot'. But then, that's just me.

[LPPrince]

Its more or less this in ME2-



Paragon-You would like to use the technology, but there's a few problems. One, too many people were captured and killed to make this tech, and two, YOU'RE GIVING IT TO THE ILLUSIVE MAN. WHO THE HELL THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA? His smirk at the end just sells it. Thats why there were so many people saying they went back and destroyed the base, because his snide smirk at the end gave off the, "WRONG!" feeling in them.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

I agree with you... I tend to choose the option that makes the most sense.



In ME1 letting the council die obviously makes the most sense b/c why the hell would you sacrifice any of your ships to save three aliens (plus the crew) when if you don't succeed in killing sovereign, they'll all die anyway?



In ME2 you know you're going to end up fighting all the reapers, so why blow up technology that could help you win the war just to tell someone to shove it? Sounds more like a renegade option to me.

[Xen_Townsend]

Paragon is Lawful Good.

Renegade is Chaotic/Robotic Logical Good.



LG people see CG as evil. CG people see LG as overly idealistic, "retarded."

Two sides, same die.

[LPPrince]

Paragon=Looking ahead at the long term



Renegade=Looking now at the short term

[Oawa]

OP you're probably not the only person that feels that way, but it's really your opinion, and whomever elses that share the same view.



Each person that makes the choices, will have their own means of justifying that choice. Doesn't mean it's right/wrong, good/bad, smart/idiotic.



@Badpie



For me personally, the end choices didn't seem very black and white at all. I think the real issue people have with them is they seem very limited, which to me is fairly understandable since it wouldn't be realistic for Bioware to try and appease so many different perspectives in a fairly "pre-set" storyline.

[Ahglock]

While the ME 1 paragon choice seemed dumb metagame wise its not. You know you will win anyways and you have better relations with the other races. Then again I thought the full renegade option was dumb as well. The more neutral focus on the reaper option was the only smart choice IMO. The reaper was the real threat and you had to focus on it to take it down. But I don't actively want the council to die, I just wont waste resources that I may need to take down the reaper trying to save them.



Me 2 I totally disagree with you on what is the smart thing to do. You actively know cerberus are jerks and will use the technology to dominate the other races, he even freakin admits it. Sure it may help against the reapers if you learn something from it in time, but you also just gave the advanced technology to the grand wizard of the kkk. I'll take my chances instead of creating another threat just as bad as the reapers with cerberus.

[LPPrince]

He says, "Cerberus IS humanity".



So all he wants to do is make Cerberus stronger.



SCREW THAT.

[SnakeHelah]

Because Renegade= Pure idiot

[Badpie]

I really think the best combo is a mix of paragon and renegade choices throughout. It's the most realistic I think.

As far as the big choices go, there are definite justifications for both. Looking at the implications down the line for my choices is what helped me there. Tried to stay away from "emotional" choices and do the logical, for the greater good thing and to be honest a lot of those choices ended up being paragon for me.

@Snake.  I don't think renegade is idiot per se.  But they definitely made him kind of a meat head with a personal agenda and a bad attitude (very entertaining to watch, but I can't play that way).

Modifié par Badpie, 23 mars 2010 - 06:12 .

[DarthCaine]

In BioWare games good choice==good consequence, evil choice=bad consequence

Just look at Awakening

[pineappledan]

to clarify, i should say that making the choice in ME 1 assumes you don't already know the outcome it has in ME 2. i made the choice with the assumption that i didn't KNOW that i could both save the council and kill sovereign. I didn't KNOW I could have my cake and eat it too. Also i should apologize for any use of "you" in the topic, i don't mean to say "you are childish", but more "Shepard is childish"



also to clarify: I played renegade in ME 1, but paragon in ME 2. IMO, your P/R path doesn't have much to do with your decision, as by the end of the game you are not concerned with your P/R score.



I like LPPrince's justifications, good logic.

[LPPrince]

By end game, my character is max'd out paragon wise, and has a little more than the first bar renegade.

[enormousmoonboots]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

enormousmoonboots wrote...

Paragon Shepard is Captain America. If you can't respect Cap, I can't respect you.

Yeah right...

You sassing Captain America? Because I might have to come to your house and beat you up for that.

[LPPrince]

Yeah, no one HAS to be on one side of the spectrum.



There are lots of grey. Or rather, purple, in this case.

[Badpie]

pineappledan wrote...



also to clarify: I played renegade in ME 1, but paragon in ME 2. IMO, your P/R path doesn't have much to do with your decision, as by the end of the game you are not concerned with your P/R score.

Yeah I didn't pay too much attention to the bars.  But that sort of screwed me in the moments where I was too neutral for any paragon or renegade dialogue options.  My bar was usually 5 to 1 paragon to renegade.