Moderator: Thanas
Actually Spectres are there to uphold the peace of the galaxy. The whole point of being a Spectre is they can work outside of the law without having to worry about its limitations if need be. (But I'm nitpicking.Stofsk wrote: Killing her as a renegade makes perfect sense because you are placing your actions above the law, which both as a human soldier and as a Spectre you are sworn to uphold.
)
It might even have been better if you didn't even know she was the rachni queen - and the only way you could know that is if you asked the right questions to the right people at the right time well before hand. If you didn't have that information before hand you could just assume it was some alien that was captured and experimented on by a human corporation, and letting it go is logically merciful.Stark wrote:Yeah, like Ford said it's a very nuanced situation - one that Law and Order would spin into a heartstrings-pulling two-parter. In ME we got 'don't do it', 'no do it' and 'you must decide right now' and 'it will have no impact on anything'.
Frankly, a great element missed was that doing the 'wrong' or 'bad' thing would probably have made you a galactic hero, and exploring that could have been very interesting.
Bah, you are right!General Zod wrote:Actually Spectres are there to uphold the peace of the galaxy. The whole point of being a Spectre is they can work outside of the law without having to worry about its limitations if need be. (But I'm nitpicking.Stofsk wrote:Killing her as a renegade makes perfect sense because you are placing your actions above the law, which both as a human soldier and as a Spectre you are sworn to uphold.
Evidently not, since I thought your comment about "not being able to make informed decisions" was directed at my statement about the two things being the reverse of what they would normally be. But who needs clarity when you're Stark?You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I guess me bashing on many of the same things you are in this very thread is evidence of me defending the ME system against all comers?I know you don't play games with functional choice systems but do pay attention.
Not really. You aren't qualified to make a choice about genocide, and likewise you're not qualified to make a choice that unleashes a potential blight on the galaxy. The "good guy" thing to do, as well as what is in the best interest of the council and the galaxy, is "let other people decide". That way you can let them live in captivity, with a watchful eye on them at all times, instead of just letting them go willy nilly to do whatever they please.That would be more the neutral/i don't give a fuck response
Did we play the same game? The POINT of the specters is that they are not bound by the law in any way, so that they can preserve "the stability of the galaxy". I.e. protect from threats, maintain the general status quo. When I'm talking about "doing things by the book" I'm not talking about following the law to the letter, I'm talking about fulfilling the Spectre's mission statement.I see. Let me repeat myself then, with added emphasis, since you completely and utterly ignored me.
...
The law btw is not only human law but the Council's law as well. The fact that they wiped them out thousands of years ago makes no fucking difference. A thousand years ago if some ruler murdered someone does that make it not murder to do the exact same thing a thousand years later? (please don't answer this question, I am being rhetorical)
Killing her as a renegade makes perfect sense because you are placing your actions above the law, which both as a human soldier and as a Spectre you are sworn to uphold.
This isn't actually conveyed well in the game, but the controlling interests in the lab are actually planning to destroy the place from orbit in order to contain the outbreak. Leaving her is essentially no different than killing her. On the other hand I think you can actually 'contain' the outbreak before fighting Benezia, meaning you could legitimately leave the Queen there but ... whatever.Stark wrote:The Rachni thing is the stupidest, of course; why not just leave it there?
Blame the victim! Wait, what? The good guy option is to let an entire race live on as captive prisoners? When they've done nothing wrong? Or is it ok to punish the children for the sins of the father?adam_grif wrote:Not really. You aren't qualified to make a choice about genocide, and likewise you're not qualified to make a choice that unleashes a potential blight on the galaxy. The "good guy" thing to do, as well as what is in the best interest of the council and the galaxy, is "let other people decide". That way you can let them live in captivity, with a watchful eye on them at all times, instead of just letting them go willy nilly to do whatever they please.That would be more the neutral/i don't give a fuck response
Can you actually try to address the fucking point for once rather than continually move the goal posts? You began by saying paragons are 'by the book' which anyone can reasonably interpret means 'follows the law'. When told that the law forbids genocide you then qualified that by saying 'oh plays by the COUNCIL's rules', when I point out that COUNCIL law forbids genocide you've further qualified it yet again by saying it's now about Spectres doing whatever the fuck they want.Did we play the same game? The POINT of the specters is that they are not bound by the law in any way, so that they can preserve "the stability of the galaxy". I.e. protect from threats, maintain the general status quo. When I'm talking about "doing things by the book" I'm not talking about following the law to the letter, I'm talking about fulfilling the Spectre's mission statement.I see. Let me repeat myself then, with added emphasis, since you completely and utterly ignored me.
...
The law btw is not only human law but the Council's law as well. The fact that they wiped them out thousands of years ago makes no fucking difference. A thousand years ago if some ruler murdered someone does that make it not murder to do the exact same thing a thousand years later? (please don't answer this question, I am being rhetorical)
yes haha spectres operate outside the lawKilling her as a renegade makes perfect sense because you are placing your actions above the law, which both as a human soldier and as a Spectre you are sworn to uphold.
It doesn't look incredible on PC, but it plays a shitload better.It probably didn't help that the 360 version looks like dogshit.
As many as any other game I imagine? There's plenty over @ Bioware Social who do it, but they aren't exactly a representative sample of the whole gaming population.Does anyone know anyone who actually plays these games in any kind of RP, or just do 'renegade runs' or whatever?
Definately. The Rachni choice is just like "Surprise! Decide the fate of a species!" All I knew about the rachni was that they were poorly designed enemies that pissed me off.But because you've had a number of discussions on the topic, and because you actually have discussions on it during the mission, the actual decision at the end - despite not really having any impact on the game or the plot - has a lot more impact. You are informed of Mordin's position, and you have heaps of experience with Krogan by this point, so the decision feels more real.
It's a hive mind race whose only contact with citadel species was "rarr we declare war on you instantly". You'd be a retard to let them go. The smart thing is keep them in isolation under guard until we can determine whether they're hostile or not. This is a safety precaution. If we can determine that this queen genuinely does want to play ball with us, THEN we can give it freedom to expand and do what it likes.Wait, what? The good guy option is to let an entire race live on as captive prisoners? When they've done nothing wrong? Or is it ok to punish the children for the sins of the father?
No, I said:Can you actually try to address the fucking point for once rather than continually move the goal posts? You began by saying paragons are 'by the book' which anyone can reasonably interpret means 'follows the law'. When told that the law forbids genocide you then qualified that by saying 'oh plays by the COUNCIL's rules', when I point out that COUNCIL law forbids genocide you've further qualified it yet again by saying it's now about Spectres doing whatever the fuck they want.
thenit was supposed to be play-by-the-rules / do-what-it-takes
You interpreted "play by the rules" as "council law". Fine. That's clearly not what I've been talking about this whole time. Or do you really think I wasn't aware that genocide is generally frowned upon by the law and really thought that genociding the rachni would be upholding said law?Of the two choices presented, the PARAGON (where PARAGON = PLAY BY COUNCIL RULES) decision should be "wipe them out", because that's exactly what the council did during the Rachni War. They drove them to extinction, completely and totally, and showed zero mercy.
You're talking crap. Saren wasn't stripped of his ranks because he broke the law, he was stripped of his rank because he was actively subverting galactic stability by trying to nuke a massive human colony. If you talk to Anderson, you find out that Saren is pretty infamous for not giving a shit about collateral damage. He kills innocent people for no real reason. He blows up buildings in populated areas to achieve his mission, when subtler ways that wouldn't have resulted in loss of lives were available.So did Saren, and when you proved he had gone rogue by attacking Eden Prime (which would have been um against the law, considering Eden Prime would be under Citadel protection) he was stripped of his spectre status and hunted down. I guess all spectres then don't need to worry about breaking the law - WHOOPS.
No, I'm equating Paragon to upholding galactic peace and security. I don't think killing the queen is a paragon thing to do, just that it's closer to paragon than unleashing the rachni on an unsuspecting galaxy is with zero information because the queen told you she was a nice person.Your problem is you're equating paragon with 'follows orders'. If that's the case the Nazis were paragons considering they were just following orders too.
Maybe it's the fact that Dragon Age is such a cliched fantasy setting it's like they went through a list of TVTropes and dropped in whatever they thought nerds would fellatio instead of trying to come up with a halfway original idea?SilverWingedSeraph wrote:I actually enjoy Fantasy settings, and yet I can't stand Dragon Age Origins, despite having played KoTOR literally to death -- I played it three times in a row within the first two weeks of having it, have finished it some dozen times since -- and playing through both Mass Effect 1 & 2 twice. Dragon Age just... doesn't do anything for me. Maybe if I tried the PC version I'd enjoy it more, but I tried playing the Xbox 360 version, and I just hated everything about it. I quit after 20 minutes and went to playing Neverwinter Nights.
I'm not sure what it is about DA:O that turned me off, even, but I just disliked it intensely. Maybe I have been unfair to it. I might try it again some time.
Who gives a stuff about whether the setting is cliched? The story is decent.Maybe it's the fact that Dragon Age is such a cliched fantasy setting it's like they went through a list of TVTropes and dropped in whatever they thought nerds would fellatio instead of trying to come up with a halfway original idea?
*raises hand* NWN was average, played it once, forgot all about it - still haven't touched NWN2. DO:A, I've played twice. Different strokesI quit after 20 minutes and went to playing Neverwinter Nights.
Oh really...Vympel wrote:The plots of all their games have always been different, just because in each game you play a hero with a destiny fighting a dire threat just like every other RPG ever made does not in fact make it the same game.
There's also zero reason to take what the council said about them at face value either.adam_grif wrote:It's a hive mind race whose only contact with citadel species was "rarr we declare war on you instantly". You'd be a retard to let them go. The smart thing is keep them in isolation under guard until we can determine whether they're hostile or not. This is a safety precaution. If we can determine that this queen genuinely does want to play ball with us, THEN we can give it freedom to expand and do what it likes.Wait, what? The good guy option is to let an entire race live on as captive prisoners? When they've done nothing wrong? Or is it ok to punish the children for the sins of the father?
There's zero reason to take what it's saying at face value. Obviously, if it's going to launch another war on us, it isn't going to tell that to the only person who can free it.
I know what you said, and I replied by saying that a paragon would uphold the law i.e. PLAY BY THE RULES.No, I said:it was supposed to be play-by-the-rules / do-what-it-takes
Right, and genocide is against the Council's laws = i.e. against the Council's rules. So your laughable attempt to shift this onto me 'misinterpreting' you is approaching absurdity.thenYou interpreted "play by the rules" as "council law". Fine. That's clearly not what I've been talking about this whole time. Or do you really think I wasn't aware that genocide is generally frowned upon by the law and really thought that genociding the rachni would be upholding said law?Of the two choices presented, the PARAGON (where PARAGON = PLAY BY COUNCIL RULES) decision should be "wipe them out", because that's exactly what the council did during the Rachni War. They drove them to extinction, completely and totally, and showed zero mercy.
And that is why I accused you of shifting the goalposts.I made it pretty clear in the last post that Paragons are supposed to be doing the protectors of galactic peace shtick.
The irony here is palpable.So when you say things like:You're talking crap.So did Saren, and when you proved he had gone rogue by attacking Eden Prime (which would have been um against the law, considering Eden Prime would be under Citadel protection) he was stripped of his spectre status and hunted down. I guess all spectres then don't need to worry about breaking the law - WHOOPS.
The two are not mutually exclusive you flaming retard. Saren subverted galactic stability, by breaking the law.Saren wasn't stripped of his ranks because he broke the law, he was stripped of his rank because he was actively subverting galactic stability by trying to nuke a massive human colony.
Actually, Saren simply told a different account of the events, and as there was no proof, nothing could be done about it. It's not that the Council didn't care, to argue that would be simplistic. They simply would not move on it because they hadn't been presented with any corroborating proof.If you talk to Anderson, you find out that Saren is pretty infamous for not giving a shit about collateral damage. He kills innocent people for no real reason. He blows up buildings in populated areas to achieve his mission, when subtler ways that wouldn't have resulted in loss of lives were available.
Nobody cared, council included.
That's what spectres are, whether paragon or renegade. The difference between a paragon and renegade are the methods used to reach that goal.No, I'm equating Paragon to upholding galactic peace and security.Your problem is you're equating paragon with 'follows orders'. If that's the case the Nazis were paragons considering they were just following orders too.
Killing the rachni queen means committing genocide. Leaving the facility to call the council means leaving her in the tank. This is a valid option except for the fact the facility can still be destroyed remotely, especially if the people involved in it want to bury any embarrassing pieces of evidence - like experimentation on an alien species. So if you leave and the facility gets destroyed by someone covering their tracks, it's effectively the same result.I don't think killing the queen is a paragon thing to do, just that it's closer to paragon than unleashing the rachni on an unsuspecting galaxy is with zero information because the queen told you she was a nice person.
You forgot the bit where you will do this by visiting three or for plot important locations in any order you choose, where a little hermetically sealed crisis will wait patiently to erupt just in time for you getting there, but which when you resolve it will not affect any of the other areas in any lasting or significant ways (and the location will never be interesting again).Mr. Coffee wrote:In this game you play a Jedi Knight/Grey Warden/Spectre on a mission to save the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy from the evil Sith/Blight/Reapers. Along the way you will gather companions who will aid you in your quest. But beware for your actions, good or bad, effect not the loyalty of your allies, but also determine if you stand for right and justice as a hero of the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy or if you turn to selfish ends for power and crush the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy under your boot.
Except it's not decent. It comes off as horribly generic D&D fanfiction at best.Vympel wrote:
Who gives a stuff about whether the setting is cliched? The story is decent.
General Zod wrote:Except it's not decent. It comes off as horribly generic A Song of Ice and Fire fanfiction at best.Vympel wrote:
Who gives a stuff about whether the setting is cliched? The story is decent.
Sure! Maybe every character was lying throughout the entire game about everything. Until recently there were still Asari and Krogan alive who actively fought in the Rachni War, so making something like that up would be a little bit difficult, no? That's about on par with 9/11 truthers and holocaust denial in terms of insanely elaborate conspiracies.There's also zero reason to take what the council said about them at face value either.
Right, and genocide is against the Council's laws = i.e. against the Council's rules. So your laughable attempt to shift this onto me 'misinterpreting' you is approaching absurdity.
Jesus christ.
What is the point that you're trying to make? Who said it was mutually exclusive? Spectres don't get stripped of their rank unless the latter happens with the former. I imagine they also get stripped of their rank if they subvert galactic stability without breaking the law.The two are not mutually exclusive you flaming retard. Saren subverted galactic stability, by breaking the law.
Whilst glossing over completely the differences between the actual plot in each game, which are all very different from each other. All you're doing is giving a long-winded version of every RPG design ever, but substituting Bioware game names where you can put anything else in either.Mr. Coffee wrote:
Oh really...
In this game you play a Jedi Knight/Grey Warden/Spectre on a mission to save the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy from the evil Sith/Blight/Reapers. Along the way you will gather companions who will aid you in your quest. But beware for your actions, good or bad, effect not the loyalty of your allies, but also determine if you stand for right and justice as a hero of the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy or if you turn to selfish ends for power and crush the Republic/Kingdom/Galaxy under your boot.
There, I just summed up KotOR, DA:O, and both Mass Effect games in one paragraph.
Well, that's your opinion. I think its a quite well-plotted story, and if its 'generic', then I wouldn't know - I don't immerse myself in D&D fanfiction, and I bet most other people playing it don't either. Or A Song of Ice and Fire, either.Except it's not decent. It comes off as horribly generic D&D fanfiction at best.
To you.General Zod wrote:Except it's not decent. It comes off as horribly generic D&D fanfiction at best.Vympel wrote:
Who gives a stuff about whether the setting is cliched? The story is decent.
Plenty of people enjoy Twilight too. That's not exactly a good measure of quality.Lord Woodlouse wrote:To you.General Zod wrote:Except it's not decent. It comes off as horribly generic D&D fanfiction at best.Vympel wrote:
Who gives a stuff about whether the setting is cliched? The story is decent.
Plenty of people enjoy the story, including myself. Now maybe that makes me a touch more stupid because I'm easily impressed, or maybe it's just a simple matter of personal taste.
Some people love things you hate and some people hate things you love. No ammount of "I liked it" "WELL I HATE IT" is going to get anybody anywhere.General Zod wrote: Plenty of people enjoy Twilight too. That's not exactly a good measure of quality.
I don't think there is any doubt that if another company was as popular as Bioware and did the same thing, we'd mock them as well.Whilst glossing over completely the differences between the actual plot in each game, which are all very different from each other. All you're doing is giving a long-winded version of every RPG design ever, but substituting Bioware game names where you can put anything else in either.
There are very, very, very few RPGs that don't fall into this archetype - its a staple of the genre. Singling out Bioware as making 'the same game' because 'zomg you're a hero who has to save the land from a threat' is just silly.
It doesn't matter that the Rachni Wars happened, because it's fairly obvious that the rachni were indoctrinated. You know, the 'tone from space' that she mentions? It's even confirmed in Mass Effect 2. They weren't necessarily culpable.adam_grif wrote:Sure! Maybe every character was lying throughout the entire game about everything. Until recently there were still Asari and Krogan alive who actively fought in the Rachni War, so making something like that up would be a little bit difficult, no? That's about on par with 9/11 truthers and holocaust denial in terms of insanely elaborate conspiracies.
Yes everybody knows that. But we're discussing this without taking any metagaming into account - things that happen later in the game or in the sequel can't be taken into account, and things like "well, this is the paragon option, Bioware wouldn't screw over a paragon, therefore she's telling the truth" don't count either.Ford Prefect wrote:It doesn't matter that the Rachni Wars happened, because it's fairly obvious that the rachni were indoctrinated. You know, the 'tone from space' that she mentions? It's even confirmed in Mass Effect 2. They weren't necessarily culpable.