315 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Why it's allways between be full paragon or renegade. My Shepard did both choises all the time. Sure, it seem that I got more paragon than renegade, but that was just my style.

[CmdrFenix83]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I meant that in default ME2 the galaxy is going into cold war and there are more fascist moments in the citadel. Is it the same with Anderson?

I understand taking no chances with Sovereign. One of the main diferences between renegade and paragon is that the latter usually takes the more immediate risk.

It's pretty much the same.  Turians are massing a fleet, Asari have yielded their share of the defense obligations to the Turians, allowing for an even larger fleet.  Personally, I see this as a good thing, considering what we have on the horizon.

[Nerevar-as]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

It should be "Passive" option and "Agressive" option, that makes sense. There are times when passivity is the best option, other time aggression is best. Instead we tend to get "nice and rational Shepard" and "douchebag Shepard." Mind you ME2 is a little better about how it handles Renegade and Paragon.

Not radical renegade options/dialogs where more "no nonsense" Shepard, sometimes it was just a more cinical aproach rather than cruel. Paragade?

[Nerevar-as]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

I meant that in default ME2 the galaxy is going into cold war and there are more fascist moments in the citadel. Is it the same with Anderson?

I understand taking no chances with Sovereign. One of the main diferences between renegade and paragon is that the latter usually takes the more immediate risk.

It's pretty much the same.  Turians are massing a fleet, Asari have yielded their share of the defense obligations to the Turians, allowing for an even larger fleet.  Personally, I see this as a good thing, considering what we have on the horizon.

Let´s hope when Reapers go straight for Earth (it makes sense we go first after ME2) they won´t sent us to hell. Maybe part of the plot? Paragon ME3 seem sto be eveyone vs Reapers, but Renegade goes more towards humanity alone. Can´t help thinking no Council and no Collector base (Renegade ME1/Paragon ME2) is going to be the hardest way. Why does Bioware hate neutral anyway?

[CmdrFenix83]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Let´s hope when Reapers go straight for Earth (it makes sense we go first after ME2) they won´t sent us to hell. Maybe part of the plot? Paragon ME3 seem sto be eveyone vs Reapers, but Renegade goes more towards humanity alone. Can´t help thinking no Council and no Collector base (Renegade ME1/Paragon ME2) is going to be the hardest way. Why does Bioware hate neutral anyway?

If I recall correctly, they stated that players shouldn't be rewarded for having a 'wishy-washy' morality.  Neutrality doesn't really work in C-RPG's because there's rarely 'neutral' options.  It usually turns into a balancing act of making sure every douchebag move you do is countered by unbridled kindness.

Example:  Right after throwing the merc out the window(+renegade) you then walk into the next room and rescue some workers(+paragon). 

It's not really neutrality, it's just going back and forth in (BioWare's definition of)morality.

[StrawberryViking]

Nerevar-as wrote...

The logic I use to save the Council is that I have now control of the Citadel and Sovereign is trapped inside, so it´s not such a great risk (at the moment of the choice you don´t know about HuskSovereign, nor that Sovereign can take a fleet without moving - ME3 is goning to be fun). Also, the DA is a powerful ship with crew of thousands, if the Council had been in a cruiser I would probably left them to die some playthroughs.

Is the situatuion in ME2 as bad if you put Anderson in charge? I mean, why would you put Udina? The guy backstabs you for political power without considering the consequences of you could be right.

The way I figured it, when the whole galaxy is at stake, you can't just take risks to save three easily replacable politicians, you can't just assume the Sovreign can be handled after you save the council, you have to assume that Sovreign is the most powerful dreadnaught in the known universe (which was pretty much true), and you have to use all available power to deafeat it before he lets more of his buddies in, at which point, they would be unstoppable.

But about the choice of councilor, I personally haven't chose Udina for the council position once, mostly because he's a a backstabbing politician, but it somehow makes sense that Udina would be the better choice. Sure, he was a dirty SOB when he's ambassador, but that was when he was trying to brownose the council into getting a council seat, and he pretty much did all he did for humanty's best interst (sounds familiar...*cough*cerburus*cough*) but it seems that now he's councilor, he won't resort to douchebaggery any more.

Udina is a politician, who is equipped to handle politcal things, which is exactly the reason why he should be nominated for a politcal position. The reasoning behind Anderson's nomination is that they will need his military expertice  to fight against the reapers, but wouldn't this expertice be put to better use in a military position? I mostly picked him because he stood by me the whole way, but I wasn't about to pick Udina...

Anyway, my point was that it having Udina be the choice with the favorable outcome would be a step in the right direction, as, at least in my opinion, it seems to fit that the neutral (though technically counted as renegade at some points) option, the one that seems to be driven by logic in most cases, in lieu of blind idealism, personal preference, or jackass-ness, would have the favorable outcome.

[MaaZeus]

StrawberryViking wrote...

Udina is a politician, who is equipped to handle politcal things, which is exactly the reason why he should be nominated for a politcal position. The reasoning behind Anderson's nomination is that they will need his military expertice  to fight against the reapers, but wouldn't this expertice be put to better use in a military position? I mostly picked him because he stood by me the whole way, but I wasn't about to pick Udina...

Anyway, my point was that it having Udina be the choice with the favorable outcome would be a step in the right direction, as, at least in my opinion, it seems to fit that the neutral (though technically counted as renegade at some points) option, the one that seems to be driven by logic in most cases, in lieu of blind idealism, personal preference, or jackass-ness, would have the favorable outcome.

About Udina versus Anderson, one good POV for choosing Anderson is that there are "too many politicians in the council". Udina, like all politicians, love bureaucracy, meaning things that need to be done usually take too long to happen. Choosing Anderson brings a person who is a man of action to counter balance that, an idealistic person who is willing to make desperate choices in desperate times and do it fast without thinking too much how it affects the reputation of the council. And since Reapers are coming, harsh and desperate decisions are most likely needed. Of course Andersson cant do it alone and council as a whole still has to approve whatever is needed to be done, but he can be pushing those things to happen instead of brown-nosing his position further.

[StrawberryViking]

MaaZeus wrote...

StrawberryViking wrote...

Udina is a politician, who is equipped to handle politcal things, which is exactly the reason why he should be nominated for a politcal position. The reasoning behind Anderson's nomination is that they will need his military expertice  to fight against the reapers, but wouldn't this expertice be put to better use in a military position? I mostly picked him because he stood by me the whole way, but I wasn't about to pick Udina...

Anyway, my point was that it having Udina be the choice with the favorable outcome would be a step in the right direction, as, at least in my opinion, it seems to fit that the neutral (though technically counted as renegade at some points) option, the one that seems to be driven by logic in most cases, in lieu of blind idealism, personal preference, or jackass-ness, would have the favorable outcome.

About Udina versus Anderson, one good POV for choosing Anderson is that there are "too many politicians in the council". Udina, like all politicians, love bureaucracy, meaning things that need to be done usually take too long to happen. Choosing Anderson brings a person who is a man of action to counter balance that, an idealistic person who is willing to make desperate choices in desperate times and do it fast without thinking too much how it affects the reputation of the council. And since Reapers are coming, harsh and desperate decisions are most likely needed. Of course Andersson cant do it alone and council as a whole still has to approve whatever is needed to be done, but he can be pushing those things to happen instead of brown-nosing his position further.

I can see what your getting at, but the council as a whole seems to like dragging their feet, and from what we've seen in ME2, though Anderson is trying to take action, the 1 to 3 odds don't seem to good, and are proving to be ineffective thusfar. The way I see it, you can get the council to take action through Udina, because he is a politician himself, and he knows how they work. Like Gianna Parasini said "You can't bludgeon through bureaucracy.". If you're going to put someone in charge, it minus well be someone who knows what they're doing. 

Though I find myself seeming very hypocritical writing this, seeing as how I've never chosen Udina...

[megatron999]

You could choose Udina on my female sheperd I plan to.



Overall anderson is a better choice as he has good military experience which would greatly benefit the council. Also Udina can clean up his mess.



You must save the council as they are a necessary evil for the Galaxy. Without them the aliens would likely turn against humanity. They could have used that in ME2 you know.



Paragon is not always right. For example Mordins assistant experiments on live Krogan and sadistically tortures people for medical research. How can that be right to let him live after doing that? would you let Mengele (**** Germany) live?

[mosor]

I usually chose Udina if I killed the council since he is better at diplomacy and better able to repair the trust of the other aliens.

I chose Anderson if I saved the council because the other council members are ditherers and need a man of action to kick them in the butt.

I think both renegade and paragon will have satisfying endings (I hope). Paragon the galaxy ends up like some star trek federation. Renegade, humanity stands on its own, being the dominant power.

Modifié par mosor, 26 mai 2010 - 09:42 .

[HTTP 404]

I agree with Mosor because we have the same face

[Zaxares]

I'm going to choose Udina on my Renegade playthroughs just to see what happens, but personally, I would NEVER select him as Councilor. Sure, he's an excellent politician and knows how to get things moving in the bureacratic arenas, BUT after the point in ME1 where he betrays you to the Council, I saw him for the kind of man he really is; a power-hungry, ambitious, status-craving man. Sure, he will continue to further the cause of humanity, but he does so for the prestige and glory that it brings him. He does not have humanity's best interests at heart, and I know for a fact that if I put him into power, he will do everything to KEEP that power, even if it means becoming a dictator or ignoring the bigger picture in favour of keeping his current gains.

[STG]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

6400 dead to save 10,000.  Stated in ME2 when talking to the punchable reporter.  It's a perfect example of how the paragon choices always end up witht he best possible result.

True most of the time they do. But it kind of goes without saying really. If you treat people well and try to do the "right" thing you will always do better in life. Pushing everyone away and playing the "alone against the world" card will have you just that, alone.

Speaking of paragon results I got a mail from Toombs. He heard that I am working "for" Cerberus and said that if we ever meet again, he will shoot me on sight. It's minor, true and it's one in a hundred but it still shows that not every paragon action is better.

[Batman90]

You may point out that the paragon choices can appear "naive," but on the flipside, renegade choices can often appear xenophobic, thoughtless, and sociopathic.

I think it just comes down to the fact that "morality systems" are rarely implemented correctly in videogames, and even then, are a terrible cliche that need to be done away with.

(On a side note, in real life, while Paragon choices may not always be the correct choices, it's true that people who are generally nicer and more civilized tend to be better liked/have better overall lives than "the ends justify the means" ****s, and it's naive to think otherwise)

Modifié par Batman90, 27 mai 2010 - 04:47 .

[Neuzhelin]

No, you can not know for sure but you CAN do the morally right thing:



1) Saving biggest ship in galaxy (with the council) or losing a few minor Alliance cruisers

2) Rachni were controlled, possibly by collectors is what you find out later, their "music" was distorted.. Rachni queens made decisions while rachni soldiers obeyed orders. It is explained that there was no chance to solve it diplomatically before because the queens were hiding underground but now you have that option. Saving a sentient being > another genocide of a specie that clearly offers allegiance. In Me2 you will find out more but I don't want to reveal it.

3) Destroy an indoctrinating facility OR leave it to a xenophobic, Stalinistic group. Legion explains at some point that it is the technological advancement of the reapers or at least the desire for it is what got some of the geth on the wrong path before.

4) If you kill hostages you become like Balak.

5) Kasumi: Stolen Memory: no comment on that poor DLC.

6) Sacraficing lives of others



The way I see it: renegade options provide short time solutions that are morally wrong, while with the paragon options you focus more on the future that are morally right.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

I think that minor renegade decisions in-game are pretty much just for kicks. but overall for the major decisions, the potential outcomes paragon/renegade seem to be fair:



ME1: Saving the council (paragon) is the tactically better choice.

ME2: Keeping the Collector base (renegade) is better.



And for the other major choices (genophage data, Rachni Queen, Geth heretics), the outcomes could really be 50-50. Both paragon and renegade choices have endlessly arguable advantages and disadvantages.



And of course, it is believable that playing evil and hostile will cause you to end up as a lonely person while always taking the moral high road will cause you to be more well-liked.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Batman90 wrote...

(On a side note, in real life, while Paragon choices may not always be the correct choices, it's true that people who are generally nicer and more civilized tend to be better liked/have better overall lives than "the ends justify the means" ****s, and it's naive to think otherwise)

They tend to be happier, sure, but those pleasant lives are made possible by people willing to get their hands dirty.

One would think we would owe it to them, then, to be good people and behave kindly toward others, so that we can be happy and make the most of the lives which they have sacrificed themselves to give us.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Getting his hands dirty is Shepard's job. The paragon title is ironic because a paragon is a bad Spectre. The mission is supposed to come first, nothing else.

What is or is not a bad Spectre is as open to interpretation as the merits of renegade vs. paragon.

I should say that a paragon Spectre is simply someone who seeks to accomplish the mission while saving as many lives as possible with the least amount of damage.

Not someone who shows an error in judgment by placing less important things before the mission.

[lovgreno]

Nightwriter wrote...
I should say that a paragon Spectre is simply someone who seeks to accomplish the mission while saving as many lives as possible with the least amount of damage.

Everyone needs allies, even spectres. A good reputation certanly makes that easier.

[Massadonious1]

It's a good thing nothing Paragon Shep does in either game endangers either main storyline mission, even if they were implimented with tangible consequences.

The only situation that even comes close is Balak, and I have a feeling BioWare doesn't plan to resolve that anytime soon.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 27 mai 2010 - 09:17 .

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

What is or is not a bad Spectre is as open to interpretation as the merits of renegade vs. paragon.

No, it isn't. A spectre is supposed to put the mission ahead of all else. Ahead of innocent lives, ahead of moral actions, ahead of anything that might hinder the mission in any way. That's why they have immunity from the law.

Laziness. That seems to be your style of renegade Spectre. Laziness under the guise of practicality.

You must look for the absolute best solution and fight to achieve it. You forget that your "mission" is actually galactic peacekeeping, which is about the welfare of the people of Council space. You are a servant of the people and it is your job to save lives when possible, not take shortcuts.

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Someone who shows an error in judgment by placing less important things before the mission.

Too bad that's exactly what a Paragon Shepard is.

We both know both paragon and renegade Shepards always complete the mission. Just in different ways. This argument is invalid.