315 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkSeraphym]

m14567 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

I'm pretty sure I understand the topic just fine.

I am quite certain you're mistaken.

That paragon allows you to complete the mission just as successfully as renegade in every case is the issue being discussed here. Obviously we all know that paragon succeeds just as fine or we wouldn't have this thread. The OP takes issue with this because it makes the renegade approach pointlessly costly in lives from a meta-game approach.

Why can't paragons complete missions as "successfully" as renegades? I don't understand why some renegades get bent out of shape over paragon choices. It's not like paragons have it all rosey, if you save the council in ME1, they are of no help to you in ME2. Sparing the Rachni has had no tangible effect on the game either at this point.

It seems to me that the goal here is:

1) Cry about paragon choices
2) Secretly hope bioware screws paragon choices
3) Triumphantly claim paragon choices are stupid

I think you might be missing his argument. His argument isn't that paragons shouldn't be able to complete missions as successfully as renegades. His argument is that the way in which you complete a mission should be reflected in the game a little better than it really is. For instance to take a scenario right out of the game, the decision to save the Council. As it stands, it really makes no difference so far whether or not you saved them from an actual gameplay perspective. This is not necessarily reflective of the entire premise of Paragon and Renegade. A renegade player would have allowed the Council to die because the lives of three important figures are not more important than that of all of the people that would have be expended to protect them. A Paragon player would have opted to make this sacrifice and this sacrifice should have been reflected in the game, perhaps even with the death of a recruitable character that you did not take onto the Citadel with you.

As it stands, Paragons and Renegades both get the job done in Mass Effect. The problem is that because there are no real consequences for your decisions upon the mission itself, there is no reason to be a Renegade because it just makes Shepard look ruthless, selfish, and arrogant. Another example of a way in which the system could be better implimented is if, hypothetically speaking, a batarian stowed away on your ship and attempted to hold one of your crew members hostage. Supposing that Shepard went into the room to resolve the situation, a Paragon Shepard could attempt to reason with the batarian to save both of their lives and a Renegade Shepard would simply shoot the batarian to resolve the matter right off the bat. In order to reflect the difference in the two, BioWare could take this situation and put some sort of trigger on it that could potentially cause the Paragon option to fail and have your party member shot and killed by the Batarian. In the case of the Renegade option, shooting the Batarian could also result in a close friend of the Batarian seeking out Shepard to get even and attempting to kill him.

Essentially, the problem with the system is that because BioWare has implemented a policy of "both are justifiable" and does not attach consequences to the decisions in the game (or at least has not done this yet), they have distorted the system of "Renegade not being equatable to evil" to being just that. If in my above example there were no consequences and any Paragon could simply resolve the dilemma peacefully, the Renegade option just looks needless, reckless, and merciless.

[Zulu_DFA]

m14567 wrote...
It seems to me that the goal here is:

1) Cry about paragon choices
2) Secretly hope bioware screws paragon choices
3) Triumphantly claim paragon choices are stupid

The goal is one: to point out, that despite their epic stupididy from the in-game point of view, paragon choices work out just fine, and therefore are preferable from the metagame point of view, for he warm and fuzzy feeling they provide to the player. The players that forgo this warm and fuzzy feeling are made look like real-life jerks.

[Nightwriter]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Essentially, the problem with the system is that because BioWare has implemented a policy of "both are justifiable" and does not attach consequences to the decisions in the game (or at least has not done this yet), they have distorted the system of "Renegade not being equatable to evil" to being just that. If in my above example there were no consequences and any Paragon could simply resolve the dilemma peacefully, the Renegade option just looks needless, reckless, and merciless.

Your whole post was very good, but this in particular I found very well-worded. I can agree with this. I'm not such a paragon that I wouldn't enjoy diversity and fairness in the game mechanic. This isn't to say, though, that some people don't complain about this issue for the reasons m14567 listed.

Regarding the decision to save the Council, about the lives of three figures not being more important than the lives expended to protect them: we know that 2000 human lives were lost to save the Ascension, right? But the Ascension itself had a crew of 10,000. So we are saving more lives than just three people. We sacrificed 2000 lives to save 10,000, which is an acceptable sacrifice (it might even qualify as renegade). I try to keep this in mind.

Aside from all that, despite myself I involuntarily feel like it's natural that good behavior is to be rewarded, perhaps a way of thinking carried over from lessons learned in childhood. For instance rewarding the player for saving the Council by having it result in a more stable galaxy seems a logical outcome to me. Installing an all human Council is going to ruffle some feathers.

[Dean_the_Young]

In the gameplay? There's virtually no difference to date for any choice: missions are the same, enemies more or less the same, no difference. For lore and implications for ME3? Significant differences.

[DarkSeraphym]

m14567 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

m14567 wrote...


Give me an example of where a paragon choices is more successful than a renegade one. I can't think of any. Maybe you don't get a warm fuzzy feeling from playing a renegade but I can't think of a place where being renegade is worse than a paragon.

Save the Council, save the Rachni Queen, save the colony, save the workers. In that last case you get Zaeed's loyalty and you get more money. You see not everybody makes renegade decisions because they enjoy killing or like leaving hostages to die. They do it because they're more concerned with the big picture. The problem though is that while a renegade theoretically operates out of necessity in practice there is no reason not to play paragon because you if you trust someone they never betray you and if you risk everything to save the Council not only do you succeed but you create a more stable and cooperative galaxy on top of that.

In principle renegade works fine, most especially when you role-play it since Shepard won't have any meta-game knowledge. However to balance things at least some paragon decisions should turn out for the worse.

Saving the council doesn't seem to have had any effect other than a different codex entry. Saving the rachni hasn't shown any tangible difference at this point either. Same with saving the colony. You have to make a paragon check to get Zaeed's loyalty.  I don't remember anywhere in the game where a "renegade" choice costs you someone's loyalty.

I can understand that paragons emphasize second-chances and that doesn't always work but being totally ruthless also has consequences that I haven't seen yet.

I'm ok with the notion that some paragon choices will backfire but only if some renegade choices can backfire as well.

Well the reason you didn't see the a renegade choice costing you someone's loyalty is because the real definition of a Renegade Shepard is one who gets the missions done at all costs. If I recall off the top of my head, Zaeed's loyalty mission is the only one that has a side-event that can distract you from the mission at hand, thus that is why you need that check to get his loyalty back. A Renegade Shepard would never allow himself to get distracted from the mission at hand. This is one of the few instances where the Paragon/Renegade system is correctly implemented. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Essentially, the problem with the system is that because BioWare has implemented a policy of "both are justifiable" and does not attach consequences to the decisions in the game (or at least has not done this yet), they have distorted the system of "Renegade not being equatable to evil" to being just that. If in my above example there were no consequences and any Paragon could simply resolve the dilemma peacefully, the Renegade option just looks needless, reckless, and merciless.

Your whole post was very good, but this in particular I found very well-worded. I can agree with this. I'm not such a paragon that I wouldn't enjoy diversity and fairness in the game mechanic. This isn't to say, though, that some people don't complain about this issue for the reasons m14567 listed.

Regarding the decision to save the Council, about the lives of three figures not being more important than the lives expended to protect them: we know that 2000 human lives were lost to save the Ascension, right? But the Ascension itself had a crew of 10,000. So we are saving more lives than just three people. We sacrificed 2000 lives to save 10,000, which is an acceptable sacrifice (it might even qualify as renegade). I try to keep this in mind.

Aside from all that, despite myself I involuntarily feel like it's natural that good behavior is to be rewarded, perhaps a way of thinking carried over from lessons learned in childhood. For instance rewarding the player for saving the Council by having it result in a more stable galaxy seems a logical outcome to me. Installing an all human Council is going to ruffle some feathers.

You were sacrificing more than that, though, if you remember back: you were risking entire galactic survival by weakening your approach against Sovereign. Even if you metagame the immediate casualties of th ships (Why only 2000 human lives worth of ships? Who knows.), you still have to justify the risk to the continued survival of the galaxy as well: the 2000 humans, after all, are part of what stands between the galaxy and the Reapers return. The Destiny Ascension doesn't.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Regarding the decision to save the Council, about the lives of three figures not being more important than the lives expended to protect them: we know that 2000 human lives were lost to save the Ascension, right?

That's really not the point. You know sometimes I feel like I'm conversing with chimps on this forum. Let me spell it out for you: the issue at hand isn't the human lives lost to save the Council: it's the fact that you risked survival of ALL SENTIENT LIFE IN THE GALAXY to save them. Frankly I don't care about the lives lost in the battle at all: I only care about the battle being successful. Towards that end saving the Council is extremely reckless because it worsenes your odds of winning the battle. That's why it is a stupid decision.

Easy, Shand. I can see your point of view, no need to mix logic with venom.

I said this in response to the suggestion that you're sacrificing the lives expended to protect the Ascension in order to save three people.

This, I feel, is an inaccuracy.

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

You save the Destiny Ascension to save the Council, not for any other reason. So it isn't inaccurate to say that you sacrificed human lives and gambled with the survival of galactic civilization to save three people.

Perhaps others did. I know the lives aboard the Ascension weighed heavily upon me.

I knew it was a large ship and it had a huge crew.

[DarkSeraphym]

Nightwriter wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Essentially, the problem with the system is that because BioWare has implemented a policy of "both are justifiable" and does not attach consequences to the decisions in the game (or at least has not done this yet), they have distorted the system of "Renegade not being equatable to evil" to being just that. If in my above example there were no consequences and any Paragon could simply resolve the dilemma peacefully, the Renegade option just looks needless, reckless, and merciless.

Your whole post was very good, but this in particular I found very well-worded. I can agree with this. I'm not such a paragon that I wouldn't enjoy diversity and fairness in the game mechanic. This isn't to say, though, that some people don't complain about this issue for the reasons m14567 listed.

Regarding the decision to save the Council, about the lives of three figures not being more important than the lives expended to protect them: we know that 2000 human lives were lost to save the Ascension, right? But the Ascension itself had a crew of 10,000. So we are saving more lives than just three people. We sacrificed 2000 lives to save 10,000, which is an acceptable sacrifice (it might even qualify as renegade). I try to keep this in mind.

Aside from all that, despite myself I involuntarily feel like it's natural that good behavior is to be rewarded, perhaps a way of thinking carried over from lessons learned in childhood. For instance rewarding the player for saving the Council by having it result in a more stable galaxy seems a logical outcome to me. Installing an all human Council is going to ruffle some feathers.

Shandepard already indicated the dilemma with saving the Citadel. It's not as much the lives sacrificed as it is the risk involved. You and I both know as players the Shepard succeeds in killing Sovereign no matter what, but suppose we were actually in Shepards shoes. We know little about this war machine and exactly what it is going to take to kill it. Is the risk of expending ships to protect Destiny Ascension worth the possibility that we won't have enough to stop Sovereign anymore and the entire galaxy being wiped out? Keep in mind that there is more at stake here than just the lives of those involved in the battle. If Sovereign wins, all sentient life is doomed.

Also, if you place yourself into Shepard's shoes, how would you have known you only lose 2,000 men instead of the 10,000 people on the Destiny Acension prior to making your decision? When I roleplay, I prefer to play the game as if I were in the characters shoes and there is no way Shepard would have known this ahead of time. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, I am just saying that if you had played in Shepard's shoes at that time you would have had no way to use this information to your benefit.

With regards to your second point, isn't that the dilemma we are seeing at hand though? Paragon is not equal to good and Renegade is not equal to evil. If you have ever played Magic: The Gathering, this is identical to "Black is not evil" and "White is not good". In their truest essence, there are certain aspects of them that can be good and certain aspects that can drive them to be evil. If you aren't famiiliar with what the colors mean, Paragon and Renegade share striking similarities to White and Black. White is about cooperation, control, and rules. White seeks to win, but only within the confines of its own rules. Black is about amibition, power, and doing whatever it takes to win.

These definitions may give the impression that White is good and Black is evil, but this is not the case. At its best, Black is amibitious and committed. At its worst, Black is merciless and cruel. At its best, White promotes prosperity and cooperation. At its worst, White not only restricts itself by rules, codes, and ethics; it also enforces these codes that it defines upon everyone else (Samara is the best possible example I can think of at Paragon at its finest).

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 27 mai 2010 - 11:06 .

[Massadonious1]

You rush in right away, only to find out that you can't significantly affect Sovereign without Shepard and his team destroying Mecha Monkey Saren.



I'm pretty sure Joker could of manuevered long enough and taken the kill shot when it was appropriate. The other Human ships in that part of the battle just seem like cannon fodder.



Of course, it's all metagaming at that point, but would you really think a Reaper wouldn't have super advanced technology to protect it from your pew pew lazors? It's been destroying civilizations more advanced than ours since god knows when.

[Barquiel]

DarkSeraphym wrote...
(Samara is the best possible example I can think of at Paragon at its finest).

I think Samara has more than enough renegade points (killing unarmed mercs...)

Destiny Acension
Saren is dead. Shepard controls the citadel. If the Souvereign could take control of the station on his own from the outside, it would never need Saren. This risk "Sovereign opens up the mass relay to dark space " simply doesn't exist. Sovereign can't win.

[DarkSeraphym]

Barquiel wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...
(Samara is the best possible example I can think of at Paragon at its finest).

I think Samara has more than enough renegade points (killing unarmed mercs...)

Destiny Acension
Saren is dead. Shepard controls the citadel. If the Souvereign could take control of the station on his own from the outside, it would never need Saren. This risk "Sovereign opens up the mass relay to dark space " simply doesn't exist. Sovereign can't win.

Vigil mentions that Shepard can only control the Citadel for a short time. The program that the Protheans designed for Shepard to be able to do this was not permanent, it was only temporary. I am not a computer science or programming major (so do correct me if I am mistaken), but is there not a way that Sovereign would have been able to use this to his advantage? Aside from that, when Shepard has to make the call he isn't aware that Sovereign has placed enough cybernetic implants into Saren's body to be able to control it even after death. If you play the game in Shepard's shoes, he had no way of knowing he'd have to fight Saren a second time so I can see why you would come to that conclusion. However, I was not confident when I made the call that Sovereign would have put "all of his eggs in one basket" so to speak.

For your first point, I suppose I can concede this point and merely change my post to "Samara is the best example I can think of in terms of somebody who can have the attributes of paragon at its worst".

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 27 mai 2010 - 11:25 .

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

So your judgement is even worse than I thought.

Congratulations, you're the last person who should be "protecting the galaxy".

It's a videogame.

I don't see why it's an error in judgment that the lives aboard the Ascension did cross my thoughts while making the decision, which is all I was saying - I think they should cross your thoughts period, no matter what you decide.

I made this choice because I sensed it could be done, and I thought it over. I was taking a chance, yes, but I felt that Saren was the one who needed to upload the codes that would turn control of the Citadel over to Sovereign again.

Well, I had just stopped that from happening, so I figured Sov was still locked out. That would mean the only lives at stake were those in the immediate area of Sov's gi-normous gun cannon. Joker told me he could save the Ascension, and I believed him. I made a decision. I fail to see why this riles you so.

[DarkSeraphym]

Nightwriter wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

So your judgement is even worse than I thought.

Congratulations, you're the last person who should be "protecting the galaxy".

It's a videogame.

I don't see why it's an error in judgment that the lives aboard the Ascension did cross my thoughts while making the decision, which is all I was saying - I think they should cross your thoughts period, no matter what you decide.

I made this choice because I sensed it could be done, and I thought it over. I was taking a chance, yes, but I felt that Saren was the one who needed to upload the codes that would turn control of the Citadel over to Sovereign again.

Well, I had just stopped that from happening, so I figured Sov was still locked out. That would mean the only lives at stake were those in the immediate area of Sov's gi-normous gun cannon. Joker told me he could save the Ascension, and I believed him. I made a decision. I fail to see why this riles you so.

I think your third point is justifiable for why you opted to save the Destiny Ascension then. I just wish there would have been some more real consequences behind either Paragon or Renegade decisions. I'm hoping that we will see them in the third game, the developers did mention they didn't want to complicate the game too much because it still had to continue on into a third game.

[philiposophy]

Nightwriter wrote...
Well, I had just stopped that from happening, so I figured Sov was still locked out. That would mean the only lives at stake were those in the immediate area of Sov's gi-normous gun cannon. Joker told me he could save the Ascension, and I believed him. I made a decision. I fail to see why this riles you so.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this as the case. At the time you make the decision, Sovereign can't open the mass relay. If he could, he wouldn't have risked so much and wasted time fighting you through Saren.

[DarkSeraphym]

philiposophy wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Well, I had just stopped that from happening, so I figured Sov was still locked out. That would mean the only lives at stake were those in the immediate area of Sov's gi-normous gun cannon. Joker told me he could save the Ascension, and I believed him. I made a decision. I fail to see why this riles you so.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this as the case. At the time you make the decision, Sovereign can't open the mass relay. If he could, he wouldn't have risked so much and wasted time fighting you through Saren.

I saw this as the case, I just thought I was being more prudent with some of the other information available at the time. The only reason that Sovereign even needed Saren to upload the codes was because the Keepers were not responding to the message that the Reapers were trying to send to them. I assumed that if these beings were really so "all-knowing", this would have set off a big red flag to them and caused Sovereign to seek a possible alternative before jumping on the Citadel without a back-up plan.

I more or less assumed that a machine would not have given into a human idea like arrogance and would have done the logical thing by attempting to come up with another out. Silly robots.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 27 mai 2010 - 11:29 .

[Nightwriter]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

I think your third point is justifiable for why you opted to save the Destiny Ascension then. I just wish there would have been some more real consequences behind either Paragon or Renegade decisions. I'm hoping that we will see them in the third game, the developers did mention they didn't want to complicate the game too much because it still had to continue on into a third game.

Yeah, I remember them saying that and I can see how they'd need to be careful.

I also agree I would like to see more real consequences for good and bad decisions. For instance your example of a batarian sneaking aboard and taking a hostage was superb. It presented a great example of how the balance between paragon and renegade should be kept.

Both actions should have consequences, not reward/punishment.

[Massadonious1]

I wonder how upset people would of been if the Ascension's main gun was the best/only way to take Sovereign out. So much for your tactical decision, eh?