315 réponses à ce sujet

[enormousmoonboots]

What are the negative consequences to Renegade actions? They're no better or worse than Paragon ones. What, some people don't like you? Is that it?



Paragon and Renegade are designed to be balanced. One is not supposed to be more valid or correct than the other, and complaining that Paragon is 'not realistic' is just silly. If you don't like the action, don't choose it. Paragon actions are correct for a Paragon player. Renegade actions are correct for a Renegade player. Ever notice that your party members almost always say 'You did the right thing' no matter what you do? By making decisions, you create the galaxy you wish to create.



If you don't think Paragon consequences are realistic, then don't choose them. Chose the decisions you want to build the world you want to be in. You want grimdark, you can have grimdark! You want idealism, you can have idealism! Why do people keep insisting that one side must be gimped?

[Massadonious1]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

Paragon is made of fail in mass effect.
Mainly because the devs try too hard to steer away from "rewarding" players for being the bad guy.
Consequently, there's rarely a downside to paragon ... which is, frankly, lame.

I don't get why people always say this. There's rarely a downside to being Renegade, either.

As if one side should be "punished" more than the other for their decisions, or something. It's dumb.

[Massadonious1]

Shandepared wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Quite honestly being ruthless isn't the only way to get the job done as you can get the job done both ways, its just a matter of difference in philosophy.

You cannot always get the job done both ways.

I seem to remember being able to continue playing the game (and getting a little more intel) from not pushing that merc out the window.

[Massadonious1]

Probably, but regardless, they are never going to pigenhole people into making a choice, because in your mind, it makes more sense than whatever else they come up with for the opposite choice.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 26 mai 2010 - 06:19 .

[enormousmoonboots]

Shandepared wrote...

enormousmoonboots wrote...

What are the negative consequences to Renegade actions? They're no better or worse than Paragon ones. What, some people don't like you? Is that it?

Paragon and Renegade are designed to be balanced.

A fair point but what we wind up with is choices that don't have any actual consequences. In the end though renegade comes off looking worse because it is clear in the meta-game that their ruthlessness and distrust is completely unnecessary.

I thought you hated metagaming.

And at any rate, that's not a problem with Paragon, it's a problem with the entire alignment system and its fundamental principles. Nobody reacts to your overall alignment, choices are essentially equal, and despite what they're touted as, Paragon is basically good and Renegade is basically bad. The P/R system is kind of a failure overall, to be honest. Paragon doesn't 'need' to be punished, the system just needs to be overhauled.

[lovgreno]

To me it seems like the moral of ME is that all choices have both bad and good concequences. I agree that might not always work as intended in the story. To say that paragons are naive and that renegades are shortsighted is just a lack of imagination.

Paragon gives more public support in the game, wich is fairly realistic. But that is something a renegade Shepard would value less so from alternative Shepards points of wiews both choices can be the right one.

But yeah, whatever you do, renegade or paragon, it doesn't make much difference in the game anyway.

[Massadonious1]

I understand what you're getting at (thanks for the insult, BTW) but the potential for consequences for decisions in either Mass Effect is much more complex than losing a stat point or two.

According to you, saving the base and taking "advantage" of Reaper technology is the most prudent choice. If this game had tangible punishments for making decisions, like in your example, what should happen to people who decide to destroy it outright and take their chances with a united galaxy wide fleet? Should more people around their Shepard die? Should they even beat the game at all? Likewise, I wouldn't wish to make the game harder or less fullfilling in the end for you, simply because I believe that protecting a society by turning them all into Reaper slushies is a pretty bad idea.

I'm all for complexity, I'm all for being forced to take a little bit longer way if I don't decide to murder a bridge keeper or some such, but I'm not about making the game arbitrarily more difficult because the morality of a choice doesn't always mesh with the plausibilty of it.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 26 mai 2010 - 07:16 .

[JustValiant]

I admit that a lot of Paragon/Renegade choices are lacking subtlety and letting the Paragon appear as naive and quixotic while the Renegade seems to be a brainless psychopathic killer (Shiala, Rachni Queen). Maybe there is a need for more choices like Virmire - for example between saving your Love Interest and an entire colony. Paragons would sacrifice their love in order to save thousands of lives while Renegades would stick to her/him regardless of the consequences. But in the end it just depends how eveyone defines Paragon and Renegade and the morality behind them.

[Nightwriter]

I'm not sure what is meant by paragon decisions always being the "right" decisions.

Do you mean they are more rewarding? Yes, paragon decisions do tend to be more rewarding.

A lot of the time renegade choices just mean acting like an ass. So if you're saying you'd like some more situations where acting like an ass is the only way to get the job done, no, I disagree.

Being an ass is not the only way to get the job done, it's just being an ass. An unnecessarily destructive ass. So I think my issue is that they should redefine the nature of renegade choices to make them more reasonable and less evil for the sake of evil.

[Chickenaut]

I tend to think that Paragon choices is based on logical and thorough thinking and Renegade choices is based on mood swinging emotional thinking.

Modifié par Chickenaut, 26 mai 2010 - 08:51 .

[Nightwriter]

^ Sad but often true, Chickenaut.

[Ieldra]

enormousmoonboots wrote...
Paragon and Renegade are designed to be balanced. One is not supposed to be more valid or correct than the other, and complaining that Paragon is 'not realistic' is just silly. If you don't like the action, don't choose it. Paragon actions are correct for a Paragon player. Renegade actions are correct for a Renegade player. Ever notice that your party members almost always say 'You did the right thing' no matter what you do? By making decisions, you create the galaxy you wish to create.

Except that they aren't. Balanced, that is. Or rather, the most plot-important decisions are balanced in validity but not in consequences. Like this:
(1) The Council: concentrating your efforts on the Sovereign and saving the Council are both valid decisions, except only the Renegade decision has negative consequences.
(2) Noveria: killing or releasing the Rachni queen are both valid decisions, but we get positive consequences (at least it looks like that) only for the Paragon decision.

We don't know how the ME2 decisions will play out, but I'm certain we'll get positive consequences for the Paragon decision only yet again regarding rewriting/destroying the Heretic faction of the geth. Regarding consequences, decisions are weighted in favor of the Paragon player, which is not as it should be.

What I'd like to see is that plot-important Renegade decisions turn out to be also the advantageous ones at least some of the time. The most appropriate one IMO - of course some would passionately disagree - is the decision at the Collector base.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 mai 2010 - 09:00 .

[Nightwriter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Except that they aren't. Balanced, that is. Or rather, the most plot-important decisions are balanced in validity but not in consequences. Like this:
(1) The Council: concentrating your efforts on the Sovereign and saving the Council are both valid decisions, except only the Renegade decision has negative consequences.

I think that's because the renegade option is something like, "Let them die for all I care."

This has absolutely no justifiable reasoning behind it. The "pragmatic" renegade choice here would be the neutral decision to concentrate on Sovereign, as this is a clear example of a tough or ruthless choice made for good reasons and to accomplish the mission, which is how a lot of people define renegade.

The renegade choice in this case feels more like deliberate spite or nastiness. You want them to die. This is a negatively charged emotion, so it yields negative results.

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) Noveria: killing or releasing the Rachni queen are both valid decisions, but we get positive consequences (at least it looks like that) only for the Paragon decision.

Well, in ME1 people actually really disapprove of that decision and are very unhappy. The paragon has to take a lot of flak for that before we meet the asari on Illium.

[Collider]

I would like a more balance from paragon and renegade. Realistically though, I don't want any one decision in ME1 or ME2 to completely **** you over in ME3. I don't need to worry about that at all though.

[Massadonious1]

Shandepared wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I understand what you're getting at (thanks for the insult, BTW) but the potential for consequences for decisions in either Mass Effect is much more complex than losing a stat point or two.

The potential is irrelevant because there are no consequences. 

It's not irrelevant when you give suggestions on how decisions should be handled.

I'm still interested in what kind of penalities you would impose in that particular, or any situation.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

I don't either. That wouldn't be very fair after all. You should still be able to achieve a satisfying ending no matter what choices you made. Even the worst possible import should be able to defeat the Reapers.

I'm curious as to people's feelings about this comment.

I've heard lots of people say they want consequences - even bad ones. They want to f*ck up and have it matter. And in a more serious way than you have less people around you who like you or a different flavor of the same outcome.

I've even heard people say they want an outcome where you actually lose against the Reapers. They want that possibility to exist. It means your choices count.

[Massadonious1]

I'm pretty sure I wanted examples on how you would handle reprecussions for a Mass Effect decision, not how a fantasy RPG (Fable or Fable 2) does it.