115 réponses à ce sujet

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...

It's not about "proof." Your "debate" consists entirely of you saying "Renegade Shepard was badly written because he is inconsistent." To which I reply "In what way is he inconsistent?" And you answer: "He just is." Without examples that support your point of view, how the hell can we have any discussion?

Actually, I didn't: *strawman alert*. I'll recap once more, shall I?

 I said that the renegade shep doesn't live up to classic antihero characterisation in that, in my opinion, he's too much of a jerk to illicit empathy and identification from most players. That character identification is essential in drama  - you need to care about a character to care about what happens to him, even if he is a rogue. It's hard to care about what happens to an obvious jerk.

The point about softening the jerk Shephard by mixing in paragon options was raised by yourself and another poster. Now, if that's seen as necessary to prevent a renegade from being a total jerk then it's an obvious sign that the renegade shep isn't properly characterised, isn't it? It's a basic agreement with the points I've made. A character who constantly jumps from being an obnoxious jerk one minute to being a near saint the next is incongruous and badly formed by any writer's standards ( unless the character has some form of personality disorder  ).

I'd say that anybody who has played the game can see the huge differences between the paragon responses and the renegade ones - are you really telling me I need to provide proof of that? Are you really saying that you can blend those into one believable character, without breaking immersion? Why aren't I constantly asking you for proof of that? Maybe it's because I'm not a jerk.

Modifié par shootist70, 05 août 2010 - 08:31 .

[JaegerBane]

shootist70 wrote...

I always feel slightly pained when playing a renegade game, the character doesn't seem to correspond with the stereotype of the antihero. The renegade Shephard is no John Marston  - a sympathetic rogue achieving heroic ideals in an often amoral manner. The conflict isn't there. The renegade Shephard comes across as a flat-out jerk and feels completely inconsistent with an heroic saga - you wonder why he would ever bother being there.  A properly done antihero can still slot neatly into that sort of a story, yet renegade Shep feels badly written in this environment.

Maybe it's down to my own personal preference. Anybody else feel the same?

My general feeling is that Renegade Shepard is, essentially, careless. He doesn't think things through.

Sometimes this works to his advantage - e.g. in the Earthborn quest in ME1, shooting the blackmailer is clearly the best option- but most of the time, it's generally just short-sighted (yeah, you've come to purgatory to collect a psychotic biotic ball-buster - threatening her with gunshots is *exactly* the kind of persuasion that will work. No, really.... )

The whole thing with Morinth, for instance, is a classic example of an unbelievable risk on the floaty basis that you might get something useful out of it.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Paragon Shepard tends to think of the present and near future (e.g. trying to save as many lives as possible on the current mission). Renegade Shepard tends to think of the future and beyond (e.g. sacrificing lives on the current mission to make sure more people survive in the future).

In addition, Paragon Shepard likes to take the time and think things through no matter the situation. Renegade Shepard is always in a hurry and doesn't even look for alternatives and the like.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 05 août 2010 - 08:46 .

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

I said that the renegade shep doesn't live up to classic antihero characterisation in that, in my opinion, he's too much of a jerk to illicit empathy and identification from most players. That character identification is essential in drama  - you need to care about a character to care about what happens to him, even if he is a rogue. It's hard to care about what happens to an obvious jerk.

The point about softening the jerk Shephard by mixing in paragon options was raised by yourself and another poster. Now, if that's seen as necessary to prevent a renegade from being a total jerk then it's an obvious sign that the renegade shep isn't properly characterised, isn't it? It's a basic agreement with the points I've made. A character who constantly jumps from being an obnoxious jerk one minute to being a near saint the next is incongruous and badly formed by any writer's standards ( unless the character has some form of personality disorder  ).

I'd say that anybody who has played the game can see the huge differences between the paragon responses and the renegade ones - are you really telling me I need to provide proof of that? Are you really saying that you can blend those into one believable character, without breaking immersion? Why aren't I constantly asking you for proof of that? Maybe it's because I'm not a jerk.

I was not asking for proof that paragon responses differed from renegade ones. *strawman alert.* Allow me to recap.

You said "it's impossible to have a Shepard who mixes Paragon and Renegade without breaking immersion." My obvious answer is that you just aren't being creative enough. I provided three realistic examples of where a predominantly X Shepard can still take Y course of action and stay in-character. You have neither discussed nor refuted any of these.

Pure Shepard is the unrealistic option - whether pure Paragon or pure Renegade. What Shepard, for example, would ask the warden of the Galactic extortion racket/prison "Can't we talk about this?" when he's about to be held hostage, however Paragon?

Perhaps it is easy for your game to break immersion, but you cannot presume the same about mine.

[Whatever42]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Paragon Shepard tends to think of the present and near future (e.g. trying to save as many lives as possible on the current mission). Renegade Shepard tends to think of the future and beyond (e.g. sacrificing lives on the current mission to make sure more people survive in the future).

In addition, Paragon Shepard likes to take the time and think things through no matter the situation. Renegade Shepard is always in a hurry and doesn't even look for alternatives and the like.

Not necessarily. Letting the council die might serve the present - they were obstructionist, for example. However, letting the council be destroyed might mean less future co-operation from the other races, endangering humanity down the road.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Paragon Shepard tends to think of the present and near future (e.g. trying to save as many lives as possible on the current mission). Renegade Shepard tends to think of the future and beyond (e.g. sacrificing lives on the current mission to make sure more people survive in the future).

In addition, Paragon Shepard likes to take the time and think things through no matter the situation. Renegade Shepard is always in a hurry and doesn't even look for alternatives and the like.

Not necessarily. Letting the council die might serve the present - they were obstructionist, for example. However, letting the council be destroyed might mean less future co-operation from the other races, endangering humanity down the road.

I realize that; I was just illustrating the general picture -- at least the way I view it.

[shootist70]

You said "it's impossible to have a Shepard who mixes Paragon and Renegade without breaking immersion." My obvious answer is that you just aren't being creative enough.

Your argument is still a pretty dull one revolving around loose ideas about 'being creative' with game mechanics, backed up by a few loose examples, and you still can't see how contradictory that is - if the renegade Shephard was a well developed character it would never be necessary to do that in the first place, would it?

[kennyv217]

Yeah in Mass Effect 1, being a total renegade is being a ruthless Soldier who will get the job done, even is civilians die (only an example). Being a total renegade in ME2 is just being a complete a**hole/b*tch.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I really think Renegade could be done better. It just feels overly aggressive, to the point where it's even childish and ultimately stupid. There are things I just can't justify doing with my Renegade FemShep. Quite a lot, actually.

[shootist70]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I really think Renegade could be done better. It just feels overly aggressive, to the point where it's even childish and ultimately stupid. There are things I just can't justify doing with my Renegade FemShep. Quite a lot, actually.

Yep. Renegade shep seems to have almost the same philosophy on getting the job done as Saren did, yet even Saren seemed more philosophical about it. Personally I reckon ME2 renegade shep would have forwarded his CV to the Reapers for Saren's vacancy by now.

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

You said "it's impossible to have a Shepard who mixes Paragon and Renegade without breaking immersion." My obvious answer is that you just aren't being creative enough.

Your argument is still a pretty dull one revolving around loose ideas about 'being creative' with game mechanics, backed up by a few loose examples, and you still can't see how contradictory that is - if the renegade Shephard was a well developed character it would never be necessary to do that in the first place, would it?

We are arguing for different premises. The whole point is for you to build your own Shepard with the blocks given to you. For a realistic character, you're not going to blindly pick the red/lower text every time - you're going to pick the option that fits what your Shepard would say. For a realistic Renegade, that can sometimes involve taking the Paragon option.

This is the whole reason why gaining Renegade points does not detract from your Paragon score, and vice-versa. You were intended to be able to mix both approaches without being penalized mechanically.

You seem to be complaining because you can't just pick the bottom options all the time and have a realistic character. I am responding - you were never supposed to do that. The outlandish options, like shooting Conrad in the foot, are there for those Shepards that want to be that kind of comically over-the-top person - not necessarily for your Shepard.

Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 05 août 2010 - 09:39 .

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You seem to be complaining because you can't just pick the bottom options all the time and have a realistic character. I am responding - you were never supposed to do that. The outlandish options, like shooting Conrad in the foot, are there for those Shepards that want to be that kind of comically over-the-top person - not necessarily for your Shepard.

Do you understand where I'm coming from yet?

Yes, I am complaining, because no matter how much you flog this dead horse I don't believe that you can form a believable and satisfying antihero character by mixing up the dialogue choices - it just hasn't been well done enough. Good drama needs solid characters and what you're advocating is making something of a diffuse mess, in an attempt to create the sort of antihero character that the game should have had in the first place.

I don't want to 'get creative' with the limited dialogue choices, because it's immersion breaking. I want the renegade options to be well written in the first place. That's Bioware's job, not mine.

[PsyrenY]

And I believe you can form satisfying characters that way, so we're at an impasse I guess. I am very glad that there are paragon options that my renegade Shepard would realistically consider (e.g. putting Anderson on the Council instead of Udina) and vice-versa. And I am also glad that both the cartoonish and thought-provoking Renegade styles were included in the game (e.g. being able to punch the reporter, or put her in her place with a well-delivered tirade - both Renegade.) In other words, I am glad that Bioware put as many building blocks to make my own Shepard into the game as they did.



Complex characters are not "a diffuse mess." As I said earlier, no realistic character wakes up in the morning, has Evil-Os for breakfast, puts on his Evil suit, Evil monocle and Evil mustache to twirl, then heads off to his Fortress of Doom. Shepard can be ruthless, racist, shortsighted, and brutal, yet still be a hero to millions across the galaxy because he/she gets results. That is perfectly reasonable to me.

[SirVincealot]

I hope this Saint/Devil dychotomy disappears from gaming yesterday. I'm baffled by how stupid it is and amazed that anyone can argue for its merit by holding "that's how people are!"



Not unless you work in a psycho ward, they aren't. People are, boringly, fortunately, predictable.



(Perhaps if someone's experience of other humans consist of Tweets, MSN and forum posts, human behavior may appear baffling and highly unpredictable.)



But THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Whether or not this duality nonsense conforms to "real" people is not nearly as cogent as the dullness of a gameplay mechanic that was - maybe - fun back in FALLOUT 1. It's just one more trope ripped from D&D, badly implemented.



This s##t sucks and what story games need is actual cause and effect.



If the point of MASS EFFECT2 is to assemble the best team and build their "morale" it makes no sense whatever that Tali would stick around Renegade Shepard. Instead of ticking mental meta-gaming boxes (ME2) or actual skill ones (ME1) the game ought to live up to its potential and provide a consequence for choices made (other than facial scarring which no one seems to notice - even Liara).



From BIOSHOCK to INFAMOUS and eveything in between, this "karma" system was never smart, coherent or *good gaming*.

[shootist70]

I reckon you're spot on there, Sirvincealot. It's probably through trying to stick to that duality that leads to things like the ridiculously polarised Shephard in the first place. It's apparent from both the ME games that the options given tend to be too artificially polar to offer any real choice, and usually force the player down one predictable path anyway. It's predictable because it's already tagged as 'good' and 'bad'. Better to never see that coming in the first place.

[Poaches]

Besides what has essentially fallen into top answer good and bottom answer bad; neutral middle answers have become the worse choices representing apathy, which is just dumb.



I thought the whole "paragon and renegade" thing was suppose to not fall into the good and evil tropes, now, its just better to scrap it.

[Whatever42]

While I don't hate the karma system, I do agree with you as well, SirVincealot. And I think Bioware is actually on-board. I think the ME series is the end of the karma system in Bioware games. I base that guess on DA. They seem to be exploring with more of a reputation system, which would be far more interesting and much more fun, imo.



Then you can build relationships with your party members and groups within the game based on your dialogue and actions (just no gifts please). Then when you break up a fight between two party members, its based on how much they personally respect you.



In DA they limited it to the party but I would like to see them expand it. Perhaps they will but I'm afraid they might think its too complex for the average gamer to keep track of such things.

[this isnt my name]

TK Dude wrote...

I always felt that way when I played my Renegade in ME2.
Most of the time, he is an heartless jerk who treats his crewmates like a-holes rather than a rogue soldier that gets the job done no matter what the cost.
Bioware really botched the P/R system in ME2.

This, all my characters follow the same path pretty much, because the renegade is just something I cant play.
I was expecting a person who completes the job with ruthless efficiency, and ends justify means, the paragon was someone to save everyone and believe the ends dont always justify the mens. Instead I get a racist/****/thug or a holier than thou character, who is afraid of getting his hands dirty and loves to camp on the moral highground, the paragon/renegade system just fails. But mostly the renegade, half of it isnt ends justify means, its just kill kill kill, or being a dick. And it makes it obvious who will have the best outcome, paragons just benefit more, rachni allies,  Tim wont have a reaper factory, etc.  Aside from punshing the reporter there is no incentive to play renegade, sad really so much potential, lost because of a poor execution, very poor, its not even trying to be ruthless its just trying to cause trouble.

[BigC-VI]

@OP

I honestly have to disagree. I agree on a Renegade shep being an ass, but, much of the dialogue leaves it up to you how to create your character, and strictly picking all renegade options will make you out to be an ass. To make your said anti-hero, one would have to do right by wrong reason, IE, shooting the krogan of Werelyoc mid sentence and such. An Anti-hero would have certain renegade options and certain paragon options.



Take my characters for example. Usually paragon, most of them use renegade options when fit, like fighting an enemy in their way. My latest has ties to Cerberus (Sole Survivor) and pretty much hates every Cerberus member to the core. With that, he mostly tries to slow them down every chance he can, and I usually pick the bad dialogue options concerning them or when talking with TIM. On the other hand, my character did become friends with Jacob, thought admittingly told him in the beginning of the game he didn't trust him. Such will be the same when I save my crew from the collectors, Shep will save them because their his crew, and not really Cerberus anymore.

[PsyrenY]

Poaches wrote...

Besides what has essentially fallen into top answer good and bottom answer bad; neutral middle answers have become the worse choices representing apathy, which is just dumb.

I thought the whole "paragon and renegade" thing was suppose to not fall into the good and evil tropes, now, its just better to scrap it.

It hasn't. Paragon leans heavily towards good, but is not all fluffy bunnies and sunshine. Example: On Omega, the elcor extorting the quarian - the Paragon option has you threaten to break his legs, while the Renegade option has you convince him to buy the Quarian out. If your assertion were correct, it would be the other way around.

Example 2: In ME1, the grieving husband whose wife died on Eden Prime - you can choose to side with him or with the military, yet there are Paragon and Renegade ways to do both.

Example 3: In ME2, the enslaved Quarian on Ilium - again, you can choose to deal with the slave trader directly or deal with the buyer from Synthetic Insights - and there are Paragon and Renegade ways to do both.

I just get the feeling that the system's detractors aren't looking deeply enough - dismissing it as "D&D alignment" when it is actually much deeper than that.

(I've lost track of how many examples I've cited in this thread at this point.)

[desala]

shootist70 wrote...

[...]the renegade shep doesn't live up to classic antihero characterisation in that, in my opinion, he's too much of a jerk to illicit empathy and identification from most players. That character identification is essential in drama  - you need to care about a character to care about what happens to him, even if he is a rogue. It's hard to care about what happens to an obvious jerk.

Arrogant? Check.  Cunning, intelligent and adaptable? Check.  Moody? Check.  Troubled past?  Check.  Outcast?  Check.  I do believe we have ourselves a Byronic hero.

But yes, I agree with your point.  I'd kill off a full renegade Shep with great relish, but I would know that the galaxy would honour his great sacrifice (yadda yadda yadda) while everyone who knew him would remember him as a racist chauvanist pig.  I have no interest in playing a distasteful character, and that is what ME2 made a lot of the renegade decisions out to be.

Bioware, please please put in some proper neutral answers.  If there was a good middle point between the increasingingly-wider extremes, we could pick and choose in a fashion more suited to role playing and I'd be a very happy fangirl.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

We have neutral answers.



Nobody takes them because they want shiny dialog enhancers.



We already have Paragon. We have neutral. Honestly, I like the option of playing the ultimate jerk. I don't want Paragon-lite, although Renegades should sometimes be right and have moral ambigious stuff on his side.

[PWENER]

And this is why I concentrate on only one Shepard, who goes into both sides. His not paragon or a renegade. He goes to the right side and the one who gets the job done. Sometimes a renegade action is better than a paragon one (and vice versa). If something makes me mad, I make my Shepard get mad, if something makes me happy, I make my Shepard react accordingly. You can say he's a reflection of who I am and what I would do.

Modifié par PWENER, 06 août 2010 - 01:58 .

[desala]

@PKchu yes, many of the neutral answers are balanced and wonderful, but more of the time Shep says something and I just think ...you're an idiot. People would still pick the paragon and renegade answers for the points of course, but I'd like to play a properly moral ambiguous Shep who would also be neither an idiot or a jerk.



/minor quibble

[PWENER]

desala wrote...

@PKchu yes, many of the neutral answers are balanced and wonderful, but more of the time Shep says something and I just think ...you're an idiot. People would still pick the paragon and renegade answers for the points of course, but I'd like to play a properly moral ambiguous Shep who would also be neither an idiot or a jerk.

/minor quibble

Thats what I was saying in my earlier post. I used the paragon/renegade glitches in ME1 & ME2 so I never worry about sounding stupid, I go with the flow and always win every conversation.