315 réponses à ce sujet

[Mouton_Alpha]

Shandepared wrote...

Where did we get this idea that renegade = never being diplomatic?(...)

Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Cannot agree more. Same for Paragon being wuss all the time. But, that's the drawback of such binary artifical morality systems.

[Dean_the_Young]

ITSlinky wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Disagree. People follow you if they think they will profit by it.

People follow a leader.  It requires people/social skills.  You can be the greatest whatever, but if you roll around in your own fecal matter you aren't going to inspire people to follow you.  It's more akin to manipulation than being "well liked", but remember the old saying: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Think that sprang up for no reason whatsoever?

Since it's scientifically false? Well, it's a telling analogy.

People aren't uniformly nice/assholish to everyone else, and there are many different forms and styles of leadership. The military is one in which certain types of ****-ism is respected, within limits.

[Antikas_S]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Where did we get this idea that renegade = never being diplomatic?(...)

Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Cannot agree more. Same for Paragon being wuss all the time. But, that's the drawback of such binary artifical morality systems.

I agree.

I tend to see the Paragon as more informal and the Renegade more professional. Talking to Jacob or Kelly, for example, illustrates this.

[StrawberryViking]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

I wouldn't say it would make you an improper 'gamer', but more that it makes you an improper 'roleplayer'.  I screwed up and got Mordin killed in the vents in my first ME2 playthrough(was thinking in Me1 terms where tech skills = engineer).  It was my mistake and my main Shepard will have to live with it.  It definitely gave me a very real sense of danger throughout that whole mission because of it, however.  The entire mission I spent worried someone else I cared about was going to die.  If I had gotten the everyone-lives achievement on the first try, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.

I too think about logic.  I consider myself downright pragmatic.  However, I still put myself in the character's shoes.  In my eyes, The Destiny Ascension was a crippled vessel.  Saving it literally just meant saving the lives on board at the cost of battle-ready ships.  The datafile Vigil gave me was stated as a temporary measure, meaning Sovereign needed to be dealt with ASAP.  I have seconds to make this decision or the DA will be blown up regardless through inaction.  I deemed it was too risky to save them, and ordered the fleet to focus on Sovereign.  I can't think long-term beyond this battle, because losing this battle means losing the entire galaxy... long-term political ramifications are completely irrelevant in light of that. 

It wasn't till my second playthrough where I was playing a 100% paragon as opposed to paragade that made me realize, "Yeah, I guess BioWare wouldn't really screw us like that..."  I guess I sort of treat RPGs like those old 'Choose Your Own Adventure' books where a bad decision can literally mean game over.

This, you sir, have summed up my thoughts in a more eloquent and shorter way than ever could have, and for that I thank you.

Abd I agree with you on most points, and I did just deal with the deaths on the suicide mission, as it really made the consequences much more tangible and it makes you realize just way they call it a suicide mission. Except I picked Jacob for the vents, got a rocket to the face. Next time I need to remember: Don't pick the person who volunteers for the job (I'm looking at you "in theory any biotic can" Miranda, and you too Jacob)

[nikki191]

another bioware game jade empire took a very different view of the paragon/renegade dynamic.. renegade wasnt alwasy "evil or bad" a renegade action could have a longer term goal of making someone more self suficient and actually helps them long term.



do you help a village and things go back to normal or do you not "save the day".. if you perform a renegade action here, yes it causes damage in the short term but the village will grow back, the people stronger, etc.



renegade isnt always evil and paragon isnt always good.. people tend to look at the what of a situation not the why.. want to know if somethign is good or bad? look at the intent

[CmdrFenix83]

nikki191 wrote...

another bioware game jade empire took a very different view of the paragon/renegade dynamic.. renegade wasnt alwasy "evil or bad" a renegade action could have a longer term goal of making someone more self suficient and actually helps them long term.

do you help a village and things go back to normal or do you not "save the day".. if you perform a renegade action here, yes it causes damage in the short term but the village will grow back, the people stronger, etc.

renegade isnt always evil and paragon isnt always good.. people tend to look at the what of a situation not the why.. want to know if somethign is good or bad? look at the intent

I don't think I'd call killing a god and taking its' power as your own anything but evil.

[Dean_the_Young]

Where comes the legitimacy of god, that it is beyond challenge?

[Vaenier]

The moral system is a joke in ME. Bioware is trying to impose their ethical beliefs on gamers, or punish them later on by graying out dialogue choices. Everything has to be how they see right or wrong, no matter how screwed up their view may be. We the gamer are unable to make our own decisions on morality, they are handed to us.

**** the Paragon/Renegade system. that is not how you implement morality. instead make every choice gray, and let players actually experience the consequences of their actions for a change.

[Vaenier]

A Krogan is hungry: Do you give him a fish? Or do you give him a fishing rod and tell him to get his own food?



If you picked the first choice, you have delayed his starvation by a single day, and havent actualy helped him at all. congrats, you are evil, yet will be awarded paragon points and praised by your crew.

If you picked the second choice, you have provided him with the means to fend for himself. He is now able to survive on his own. You are seen as cold and evil though, and given Renegade points for doing the right thing.

[Gravbh]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

Paragon is wrong if you let that one merc go free. Renegade has it right. Blown that Bleach away.

I never understood why shooting someone who pulls a gun on you is considered a renegade interrupt, but oh well.

Even on my paragon playthroughs I always tell Kasumi to destroy the box. Everyone else has to remember dead loved ones the old fashioned way, so can she. I hardly see what's so "renegade" about that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Vaenier wrote...

The moral system is a joke in ME. Bioware is trying to impose their ethical beliefs on gamers, or punish them later on by graying out dialogue choices. Everything has to be how they see right or wrong, no matter how screwed up their view may be. We the gamer are unable to make our own decisions on morality, they are handed to us.
**** the Paragon/Renegade system. that is not how you implement morality. instead make every choice gray, and let players actually experience the consequences of their actions for a change.

...I though we had laid to rest that Renegade and Paragon aren't a right-wrong system? They're also both so broad they only have generalizations.

I really don't get your complaint. Bioware isn't punishing you if you fail to meet the requirements for certain rewards. And if you don't want them, don't take them: in the multitude of choices, just make your own.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gravbh wrote...

I never understood why shooting someone who pulls a gun on you is considered a renegade interrupt, but oh well.

In the case of the Elnora, it's because as an 'interrupt' it's something you immediately jumped to, like you were tensingto do already: after all, if you just miss the interrupt, she puts the gun back away.

Interrupts reflect your impulses at speed, rather than deliberate thought (or just choosing your words carefully). In which case 'shoot first, no chances' certainly fits Renegade rather than 'forgive guns being drawn on you' Paragon.

Even on my paragon playthroughs I always tell Kasumi to destroy the box. Everyone else has to remember dead loved ones the old fashioned way, so can she. I hardly see what's so "renegade" about that.

Because she doesn't have to do it the old fashioned way, and you're taking that chance from her. You're placing the security of the many over the happiness of a few.

[Appolo90]

You have to remember that ME2 is not trying to achieve realism. It's still part 'action flick'. With that in mind, you already know whether you choose to save the council or not Sovereign's fate will be the same. It will die no matter what because that's what you've been trying to do the entire game. That's how I decided to save the council. I knew Bioware was aiming to make this the 'morally sound' thing to do.

[RiouHotaru]

 What we've got here is a classic example of what TVTropes refers to as, "Gameplay And Storyline Segregation".

Bioware CANNOT make choosing one path patently worse than choosing the other, no matter how much the gamers demand it.  Because from a gameplay OR storyline standpoint, no one would ever want to pick that choice if they knew they were going to get screwed over for it.  So the demands that Paragons who saved the Rachni Queen or rewrote the Heretics should get hosed will likely be ignored.  It's just silly to expect BW to do otherwise.

Also, while gameplay-wise the results do feel the same (For example, saving the Council or not) the storyline impact is much more significant.  While the Council snubs you wether they live or not (the saved Council does it directly, the new Council snubs you by virtue of being too busy to talk to you), the impact the life (or death) is more significant on the citizens.

I mean, I actually think Paragons may have it more difficult anyway in ME3.  Think about it, trying to unify so many different races with different ideologies, cultures, and opinions will likely be more difficult than the Renegade who tries to do it with Humanity alone.  The Paragon has to deal with trying to convince their allies that the Rachni who just popped up aren't their enemies, or talk the Geth and Quarians out of blasting each other to pieces, not to mention the Krogan and a possible genophage cure, and Cerberus as well.

As for the folks that think that Paragon/Renegade should be a "win" button?  You're all just silly.  What would be the purpose of making those decisions and those choices to earn the Paragon/Renegade meter if the success of choosing one or the other wasn't guaranteed?  Yes, it means we'll pick them everytime, but that's because we want our Shepards to show off their prowess with words because we made the choices and decisions that earned us the ability to select the red or blue option.  If you don't like that, don't pick the red or blue text.

Also, you Renegades can't use Elnora as an example of how the Renegade interrupt was the correct choice.  Why?  Because if you claim gunning her down is right because she's the murderer, you're metagaming.  Notice that the ONLY person who tells you how the Eclipse earn their uniform is Ptine For, who is heinously unreliable.  He's already lied repeatedly about his motives and actions.  Why should you believe him now?  Also, gunning Elnora now is obviously an impulse move.  Even if you wait till the last second to take the interrupt there's still a good couple of seconds where she has the gun at you.  It's not as though Shepard is in any real danger.  Several times before have people taken shots at him/her in cutscenes and not even dented the kinetic barriers or even hit Shepard in the first place.

Also, the fact Shepard pulls his/her gun and has the time to deliver a snappy one-liner, let Elnora respond, and THEN shoot her silly doesn't make at all seem "right" so much as "Look-at-me-I'm-a-badass"

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Also, you Renegades can't use Elnora as an example of how the Renegade interrupt was the correct choice.  Why?  Because if you claim gunning her down is right because she's the murderer, you're metagaming.  Notice that the ONLY person who tells you how the Eclipse earn their uniform is Ptine For, who is heinously unreliable.  He's already lied repeatedly about his motives and actions.  Why should you believe him now?  Also, gunning Elnora now is obviously an impulse move.  Even if you wait till the last second to take the interrupt there's still a good couple of seconds where she has the gun at you.  It's not as though Shepard is in any real danger.  Several times before have people taken shots at him/her in cutscenes and not even dented the kinetic barriers or even hit Shepard in the first place.

You don't know she's the murderer, but you already can know from the earlier mission dialogue investigations that each Eclipse sister has to commit a murder to earn her uniform. Ptine For has no reason to lie about such as it has nothing to do with his motives or actions, nor is there anything at any point suggesting he did (unlike the other lies, at least on of which you wouldn't know at that point without, irony, metagaming). Since there's no reason to believe he's lying about that, since it doesn't affect him while admissions of guilt would, it can be taken as fact in the same sense of him giving his correct name, naming his partner, and description of his partner's death, along with other such information that he tells truthfully. What Ptine lies about would effect him: things that don't, he really doesn't.


A complaint about choreography and timing is more or less a matter of execution, not intent. Kinetic barriers are also one of those things that are very much cutscene varrying: sometimes strong, sometimes non-existent.

[RiouHotaru]

[quote]m14567 wrote...

I agree with most of this, to me the renegade ending on ME 2 seems to be in a stronger position. You have advanced technology at your disposal and an organization that is totally focused on supporting you.

The paragon ending for ME2 leaves you with no support from Cereberus, no support from the original council, the alliance seems weakened from the confrontation with Sovereign. But, I guess you get a warm fuzzy feeling...
[/quote]

Hahaha, way to misinterpret.  The Council won't support you unless you have physical evidence, which at the end of ME2, you actually HAVE.  Also, You have Wrex's support, possibly the Quarians, not to mention the Geth.

quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

You don't know she's the murderer, but you already can know from the earlier mission dialogue investigations that each Eclipse sister has to commit a murder to earn her uniform. Ptine For has no reason to lie about such as it has nothing to do with his motives or actions, nor is there anything at any point suggesting he did (unlike the other lies, at least on of which you wouldn't know at that point without, irony, metagaming). Since there's no reason to believe he's lying about that, since it doesn't affect him while admissions of guilt would, it can be taken as fact in the same sense of him giving his correct name, naming his partner, and description of his partner's death, along with other such information that he tells truthfully. What Ptine lies about would effect him: things that don't, he really doesn't.

A complaint about choreography and timing is more or less a matter of execution, not intent. Kinetic barriers are also one of those things that are very much cutscene varrying: sometimes strong, sometimes non-existent. 
[/quote]

Alright, the choreography, you're right.  That's a case of Cutscene Power To The Max (like Jack and the 3 YMIR Mechs!  I only WISH she was that good)

As for Ptine For, we know he lied about dealing with the Eclipse, so why wouldn't he like about how despicible and scummy they are just to justify his own reluctance to help you?  And he has no reason to lie about of his partner either.  But he's lied once already, twice once you find the shipping list.  But to assume beforehand would require metagaming, as you said.

Only reason I didn't pull the trigger for the interrupt is because I assumed she wouldn't really try to shoot me.  I mean, me and my two nicely armed compatriots and she pulls a Tempest in full view?  I doubt she's THAT stupid.

[Arijharn]

Nightwriter wrote...

Doesn't mean the gun can't be used later. And I never got why the Council races couldn't just elect new Councilors (if you let the Council die). Seems like they wouldn't just let humanity step in.

The way I read it (or it was implied) was that the other races took heavy losses during the attack on the citadel, and would be at a disadvantage militarily against the Human navy should the System's Alliance start to make demands. Ergo, they did not have the military strength to disobey the System's Alliance and it's demands.

[Fiery Phoenix]

ITSlinky wrote...

  Honestly can't say I agree.  I went to Afghanistan and I went to Iraq from 2001-2004.  I served in the Navy.  Quite honestly what most civilians consider to be the dick mentality is the "failure is not an option".  There's a difference between pushing someone to their peak and just pushing them to make them cry.  A "hard nosed" seargeant pushes to your limit and gets the most out of you by motivating you however needed.  He is not always hard and demanding, but only when he needs to be.  A douchebag seargeant gets jobs that are done to the bare minimum to avoid repercussion.  A douchebag is always a douchebag.

  Shepard is Alliance Navy, in any background he enlisted at 18.  He has risen to the rank of Commander and is the Excutive Officer of a starship, the most advanced prototype no less, at the start of ME.  There is no split second decision for a military personel to drop 100 innocent bystanders to kill 1 guy.  The motto of the US military "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  The key word there is DEFEND, that's what the military does.  Lives were on the line, civilians were on the DA.  As a military man....it's in his blood/brain/instinct/training to rescue those civilians.  All of us who have served will do what we can to ensure a civilians safety, we signed up to be expendable so you don't have to.  Yes it is the military's job to kill our enemies and do it in a tacticaly sound manor.  It is also our job to protect our country and its people, and this extends to our allies.  When Korea was threatening Japan, the US Navy was sitting off their coast telling them it was a bad idea.  I was there.  You want a valid logical reason for why Shepard would save DA?  It's his job as a military officer.

  On a side note, Joker said he could save the DA.  I'd have sent him in alone to do it in the Normandy because he's just that epic.  Remember who killed the giant reaper...that's right it was Joker...cause he's awesome.

Very well-put. I always thought of it that way myself.
 
However, I remember reading somewhere that some military forces believe in something called "expendable civilian targets". I wonder if that has anything to do with the subject at hand...

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 29 mai 2010 - 08:38 .

[zsom]

My problem with the current system isn't as much that paragon is always right, it's that you have to play as a naive idiot, or an a**hole to save everyone in the last mission. I like to make the decisions based on the situation. If the paragon decision is idiotic to a level I can't accept, I will choose renegade, but if being renegade implies acting as a xenophobic racist I'll stick with paragon. Sadly this does end if loosing Tali and Jack on the suicide mission. Don't get me wrong I like that my actions have consequences, but the fact that acting like a retard or a villain is the only way of escaping negative endings sucks.

[Barquiel]

Arijharn wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Doesn't mean the gun can't be used later. And I never got why the Council races couldn't just elect new Councilors (if you let the Council die). Seems like they wouldn't just let humanity step in.

The way I read it (or it was implied) was that the other races took heavy losses during the attack on the citadel, and would be at a disadvantage militarily against the Human navy should the System's Alliance start to make demands. Ergo, they did not have the military strength to disobey the System's Alliance and it's demands.

And this is something I don't understand.

We know...
- the turians lost 20 cruisers during the battle
- ME2: the turians are stronger than before
As of 2183, the turians had 37 dreadnoughts, the asari had 21, the salarians  had 16, and the Alliance had 6 with another under construction. During the year 2185, the dreadnought count is 39 turians, 20 asari, 16 salarians, and 8 humans.
- paragon ending: the alliance lost 8 cruisers (3-4 ships against the geth), the alliance is vulnerable
- renegade ending: The alliance provides the majority of ships for the citadel fleet and the other races accept human leadership (these 3-4 cruisers make the difference?)

[Asheer_Khan]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

ITSlinky wrote...

  Honestly can't say I agree.  I went to Afghanistan and I went to Iraq from 2001-2004.  I served in the Navy.  Quite honestly what most civilians consider to be the dick mentality is the "failure is not an option".  There's a difference between pushing someone to their peak and just pushing them to make them cry.  A "hard nosed" seargeant pushes to your limit and gets the most out of you by motivating you however needed.  He is not always hard and demanding, but only when he needs to be.  A douchebag seargeant gets jobs that are done to the bare minimum to avoid repercussion.  A douchebag is always a douchebag.

  Shepard is Alliance Navy, in any background he enlisted at 18.  He has risen to the rank of Commander and is the Excutive Officer of a starship, the most advanced prototype no less, at the start of ME.  There is no split second decision for a military personel to drop 100 innocent bystanders to kill 1 guy.  The motto of the US military "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".  The key word there is DEFEND, that's what the military does.  Lives were on the line, civilians were on the DA.  As a military man....it's in his blood/brain/instinct/training to rescue those civilians.  All of us who have served will do what we can to ensure a civilians safety, we signed up to be expendable so you don't have to.  Yes it is the military's job to kill our enemies and do it in a tacticaly sound manor.  It is also our job to protect our country and its people, and this extends to our allies.  When Korea was threatening Japan, the US Navy was sitting off their coast telling them it was a bad idea.  I was there.  You want a valid logical reason for why Shepard would save DA?  It's his job as a military officer.

  On a side note, Joker said he could save the DA.  I'd have sent him in alone to do it in the Normandy because he's just that epic.  Remember who killed the giant reaper...that's right it was Joker...cause he's awesome.

Very well-put. I always thought of it that way myself.
 
However, I remember reading somewhere that some military forces believe in something called "expendable civilian targets". I wonder if that has anything to do with the subject at hand...

Russian Specnaz mastered that rule to perfection as was proved in Moscow during gas attack on Dubrovka Theatre where alongside of the terrorist were killed about 130 hostages because Specnaz commander decided that eliminate of the terrorist takes absolute priority no matter how many hostages will die in the process.

Later on they pulled similar scenario in Beslan when they "release" hostages from school using tanks and gunships (confirmed by eyewitnesses) ...
They killed all  terrorists but alongside whit 326 hostages were killed including 156 childrens.

However they are more or less but lonely example when rest of the anti terrorist special forces (US NAVY SEAL, British SAS, Polish GROM and many more...) are train whit one golden rule.

"LIFE OF THE HOSTAGES ARE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY"

[STG]

m14567 wrote...
Not sure how I misinterpreted since I stated my opinion. However, Sovereign was a large piece of physical evidence that the council apparently dismissed for whatever reason. I'm not sure that a datapad is going to suddenly win them over.

"Apparently" being a key word. I am betting that they know about the reapers and are preparing to fight them but are keeping quiet about it to prevent galaxy wide panic.