My main Shepard I converted from ME 1 was a female character, I've also played a dude a few times. So far I've only beaten the second game once (beat the first one multiple times though) partially because it's so shooter-centric and that isn't quite my thing.
I played Infiltrator, and my playthrough was pretty much Paragon, including freeing Grunt, but having never read any of the novels it struck me as being foolish to destroy the captured Reaper Tech outright, especially seeing as the mind controlling aspects of the thing are known at this point and can probably be dealt with.
My thoughts on the subject are that in war you use whatever you have. What's more since The Reapers guided technological development in a certain direction to make their genocide cycle easier to control, pulling out things they couldn't have accounted for like using their own weapons and tech against them is probably a good idea. The destruction of Sovreign and the failure of The Collectors would not logically be anything they could have predicted. Such are my thoughts. If we're *SUPPOSED* to know more about what is going on, then they shouldn't put it in a novel exclusively, and put it in the game instead.
I do get the whole Paragon/Renegade points thing, and how the creators are defining certain actions. I kind of disagreed with them as to what desician should be what given what you know at the time. Besides, I can swallow the Renegade points because just because something might be immoral in the short term doesn't mean it's the wrong move overall.
Occasionally Bioware agrees with me here, in "Dragon Age: Origins" the more evil seeming of the dwarf lords (the prince) in Orzimmar is actually the better choice as a ruler in the long run and brings success and prosperity, where under the leadership of the more good seeming leader things don't exactly turn out well for them. Of course in that case both of them were corrupt jerks in their own way. Typically you know more about their overall moral outlook if you played the Dwarf origins.
I played Infiltrator, and my playthrough was pretty much Paragon, including freeing Grunt, but having never read any of the novels it struck me as being foolish to destroy the captured Reaper Tech outright, especially seeing as the mind controlling aspects of the thing are known at this point and can probably be dealt with.
My thoughts on the subject are that in war you use whatever you have. What's more since The Reapers guided technological development in a certain direction to make their genocide cycle easier to control, pulling out things they couldn't have accounted for like using their own weapons and tech against them is probably a good idea. The destruction of Sovreign and the failure of The Collectors would not logically be anything they could have predicted. Such are my thoughts. If we're *SUPPOSED* to know more about what is going on, then they shouldn't put it in a novel exclusively, and put it in the game instead.
I do get the whole Paragon/Renegade points thing, and how the creators are defining certain actions. I kind of disagreed with them as to what desician should be what given what you know at the time. Besides, I can swallow the Renegade points because just because something might be immoral in the short term doesn't mean it's the wrong move overall.
Occasionally Bioware agrees with me here, in "Dragon Age: Origins" the more evil seeming of the dwarf lords (the prince) in Orzimmar is actually the better choice as a ruler in the long run and brings success and prosperity, where under the leadership of the more good seeming leader things don't exactly turn out well for them. Of course in that case both of them were corrupt jerks in their own way. Typically you know more about their overall moral outlook if you played the Dwarf origins.
