Why Can't We Lie Sometimes?
There are times where I'd like the option to be "dishonorable" and you know something? I'd be okay if it had an adverse affect on my relationships with certain people (or improved it in some cases)....
Forum Discussion
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...I share your, and Kirk's, frustration with the solutions the game offers to many of its' problems I am asked to solve..."
I don't think you do because you say things that I am not saying. First off, I am not saying many. I said some and on at least one occasion I said a handful.
Secondly, I stated an either or situation I would have been okay with in this case which means the situation was written poorly and that is ultimately my real issue.
As it is written now, if you choose to release the Angarans, they escape before the Kett Arrive... if you choose to destroy the base, you do so as your evac is pulling out before the Kett arrive.
This means, that as currently written, the only reason (in game) you don't do both is because you gave your word to a Kett (depending on your choices, a dead one at that).
While your example also works, the one I gave here also works just as well.
Then maybe I am not following. Why would we only be able to lie/go back on our word sometimes and not more/all the time? I am kinda building on it and transferring it to other places in the game - but I thought the particular scenario had been pretty thoroughly discussed and there wasn't much for me to add there.
I thought I was agreeing with you. Maybe I'm not? What am I missing?
"...Why would we only be able to lie/go back on our word sometimes and not more/all the time?..."
For the same/similar reasons you can't do a trigger/"impulsive" action all the time. In the scenario you named, I agree with it applying there, but I don't think it should apply most of the time.
I think we partially agree.... or maybe we completely agree just for slightly different reasons, haha.
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...Why would we only be able to lie/go back on our word sometimes and not more/all the time?..."
For the same/similar reasons you can't do a trigger/"impulsive" action all the time. In the scenario you named, I agree with it applying there, but I don't think it should apply most of the time.
I think we partially agree.... or maybe we completely agree just for slightly different reasons, haha.
Then, like it or not, you are stuck with me agreeing with you here. 🙂
"....Then, like it or not, you are stuck with me agreeing with you here. 🙂..."
But why? Can't you just disagree with me on this a little? Come on! LOL
It's cool. I mean, no! I'm not stuck with you, you're stuck with me!!
--------
"....That's because it's written that you can. It's pretty obviously that this part is written that you just can't...."
You lost me here. I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're driving at. It's a Kett Base. One you've beaten before. You beat other Kett bases. There is no logical in game reason why you can't beat this base again.
I'm not talking about how the developers didn't want us to. That's obvious. I am just talking about the fact that there are missions, that as they are currently written, it doesn't make sense you're limited.
I would have liked to have no been so limited in those handful of situations but I also would have been okay if those missions were written better to where the limitation(s) made sense.
@PretzleMe wrote:
"....Then, like it or not, you are stuck with me agreeing with you here. 🙂..."
But why? Can't you just disagree with me on this a little? Come on! LOL
It's cool. I mean, no! I'm not stuck with you, you're stuck with me!!
--------
"....That's because it's written that you can. It's pretty obviously that this part is written that you just can't...."
You lost me here. I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're driving at. It's a Kett Base. One you've beaten before. You beat other Kett bases. There is no logical in game reason why you can't beat this base again.
I'm not talking about how the developers didn't want us to. That's obvious. I am just talking about the fact that there are missions, that as they are currently written, it doesn't make sense you're limited.
I would have liked to have no been so limited in those handful of situations but I also would have been okay if those missions were written better to where the limitation(s) made sense.
It would be *nice* (but not required) to clarify why they think you can take out a base, but can't take the more important religious base that's being supported by multiple Kett cruisers. I mean they are 100% totally identical and there's no difference except you aren't told that reinforcements are on their way this time to the more important location...
/sarcasm
Featured Places
