303 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Saibh wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

I'm really not a fan of "pure" runs, either Paragon or Renegade.

"Pure" Paragon just feels illogical to the point of absurdity. If I'm facing a small army of mercenaries and I have the opportunity (via a Renegade interrupt) to even the playing field somewhat, not taking that opportunity just seems .. silly. Especially when you're just gonna shoot everyone regardless of the morality path you're following.

Likewise with "Pure" Renegade. Letting someone die who may have valuable information doesn't make sense given that I can, (via a Paragon interrupt) keep them alive for long enough to question them and possibly find out what I need to know.

Showing mercy to the morally corrupt, and/or needlessly slaughtering the innocent doesn't appeal.

My biggest gripe is that the game then punishes you for thinking like that. As if someone who takes what is the most pragmatic, intelligent route would then be too foolish to learn how to convince people by either Charming or Intimidating them (or taking a third route).

How is not offering conditional-exclusive rewards a punishment?

It's a reward, not an entitlement.

[Zulu_DFA]

Saibh wrote...
...I don't push people out windows or electrocute people or punch people who ask me snide questions. I only ever feel guilty when playing Renegade.

This is the point. Common morality is based on the sense of guilt. They also call it conscience. You feel it, you're in the wrong. You don't, you're OK. It's a conditioned reflex.

These "morals" are inherently fallible, because they depend on your mood, rather than reason, but on average they work quite fine, to keep the mass of ordinary people from deteriorating into chaos.

However, when it comes to the decisions that affect the fate of millions, which is reflected in the "Big Choices" situations in ME, the guilt-based Paragon morality is too irresponsible and irrational to be applied. And that's why we also call paragons metagamers.

[Count Viceroy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm against any roleplay system in which one path virtually always comes out fine and best, while other paths can fail/be detrimental in outcome and content.

I have nothing against Paragon decisions being rewarded, and sometimes being rewarded more for greater risks. The Rachni is a good decision point. But I am against Paragon decisions always being rewarded, regardless the risk, and equally or greater than Renegade choices.

To date, there have been... maybe one decision, keeping the Collector Base, to which the Renegade decision might be better... or might not, as plenty of people have voiced expectations that keeping the base is traded off by losing equivalent support from the Council races. In which case it's a zero-net-sum gain.

This.

[upsettingshorts]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It's a reward, not an entitlement.

It's bad writing. 

[Dean_the_Young]

No it isn't. It''s simply a system you don't like because you can't always take advantage of it.



If they took away the persuasion checks entirely for 'big' decisions, you wouldn't even think in terms of how you should be able to persuade your way out of everything. And if they gave a means of always letting you make any persuasion check (like the point-carryover in ME1's repeats, where you could carry over persuasion) you wouldn't consider it bad writing either.



It's a mechanic you don't like.

[Saibh]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

I'm really not a fan of "pure" runs, either Paragon or Renegade.

"Pure" Paragon just feels illogical to the point of absurdity. If I'm facing a small army of mercenaries and I have the opportunity (via a Renegade interrupt) to even the playing field somewhat, not taking that opportunity just seems .. silly. Especially when you're just gonna shoot everyone regardless of the morality path you're following.

Likewise with "Pure" Renegade. Letting someone die who may have valuable information doesn't make sense given that I can, (via a Paragon interrupt) keep them alive for long enough to question them and possibly find out what I need to know.

Showing mercy to the morally corrupt, and/or needlessly slaughtering the innocent doesn't appeal.

My biggest gripe is that the game then punishes you for thinking like that. As if someone who takes what is the most pragmatic, intelligent route would then be too foolish to learn how to convince people by either Charming or Intimidating them (or taking a third route).

How is not offering conditional-exclusive rewards a punishment?

It's a reward, not an entitlement.

Perhaps I could feel like that if it weren't for situations where Persuasion becomes important to the story--the most obvious example being the conflicts between Jack/Miranda and Legion/Tali.

(Also, I've never checked this, but do you get Tali's conflict with Legion if you fail her loyalty mission? If you do, boy you are screwed if you lose Legion's loyalty too. If you don't recruit Samara you're pretty screwed too in terms of a biotic specialist.)

[upsettingshorts]

It's bad writing because the mechanic only rewards one choice with a consistent character.  That's before we go into the actual gameplay rewards - such as preserving loyalty of a squaddie - of the mechanic. 

The mechanic itself isn't my problem. I've even spent some thought trying to explain the logic behind it: Shepard needs to build his credibility. If he isn't consistently a good guy, he can't take the moral high ground in order to convince people he's right because no one thinks he's done anything to earn it. If he isn't consistently a bad ass, no-one is going to fear him if he tries to intimidate them.

I don't cheat to get out of the mechanic. I cheat so I can experience a more consistent character. I play a Paragon-type guy who also doesn't let morality get in the way of what - to him - is the objectively correct decision. The fact Renegade type decisions that would make sense for my character are lumped in with pro-human, pro-casual violence decisions means that I would have to fundamentally alter my character in order to use them.

I'd prefer a single coercion skill, personally, but that's neither here nor there. My primary issue is with the fundamental inconsistencies of Renegade Shepard.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 octobre 2010 - 04:37 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Seeing a very interesting thread like this one and having no idea what to say is about the worst feeling I could ever experience on the forum.

[Dean_the_Young]

Loyalty conflicts are the point in which a mixed paragon/renegade should be least effective, and the modeling of Paragon/Renegade being a mark of reputation works best. Both characters know you. Both have seen/heard you go through any number of flips and flops and selective decision making. Both are also at an extreme point that should require a lot of convincing and weight, hence the crisis.



Why should you be a believable (to them) Ghandi-like moderator if you're just as likely to slug/shoot/punch someone to solve a problem? Why should you be able to put the fear of god of someone into someone who sees you as someone who normally is just amiable?



Or, to put it in other terms: why shouldn't an extreme disagreement require the someone with a nigh-uniform reputation for diplomacy, who can be trusted by both sides? Why shouldn't putting more terror of you than hatred of eachother require a similarly backed reputation?



The claim of that Shepard should be able to be situational really works best for people without means to know him... and those are the checks with the lowest (and usually not an issue) scores.





If you don't get Tali's loyalty, no loyalty conflict. Just as if you don't get Legion's loyalty but do get Tali's, no conflict.

[upsettingshorts]

My Shepard, as conceived, is consistent to me. Renegade Shepard is, as I've established, not consistent at all.  So I can't say I find your argument really all that convincing.

To me, the gameplay mechanic's relative issues are incidental. The problem is that Renegade Shepard is a mess.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 octobre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My Shepard, as conceived, is consistent to me. Renegade Shepard is, as I've established, not consistent at all. So I don't get your point at all.

To me, the gameplay mechanic's relative issues are incidental. The problem is that Renegade Shepard is a mess.

Only if you assume all Renegade themes must be the same. They don't be. Similarly, not all paragon themes are the same either. It's natural that multiple themes can be put into contradiction with eachother, but it doesn't invalidate a grouping.

[Kamagawa]

i think it is because the ultimate renegade options in ME1 involve killing someone/something.
I don't know how wrex's brother acts if you kill wrex, but by what I hear, the krogan are on your side if you killed wrex or not.
I do agree that renegades don't get as much side story continuation as a paragon.

[DPSSOC]

My grumble with the Paragons is that it seems unbalanced.  For the life of me I can't think of a single Paragon choice from ME1 that doesn't have a positive result in ME2 and vice versa for the Renegades.  It's an issue of balance, sometimes the Renegade option should be the "right" choice, the one that turns out best overall.  For example let's look at Bring Down the Sky.

Now I admittedly don't know what Paragons get for that (always go after Balak, guessing it's a thank you email) but Renegades get a News Report about a candlelight vigil for the victims.  Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, we knew those people were going to die when we made the choice and we were willing to live with that, the game is merely reinforcing it.  Similarly the game should have (in my opinion) reinforced the consequences of the Paragon choice as well; perhaps a news report about an attack resulting in heavy casualties by Balak.  I have no issue with Paragons getting more allies in terms of the Rachni and the Council, but some Paragon choices should bite you in the ass, just as some Renegade options should turn out for the better.

Let's use Fist as another example, leave the game as is if you let him live, but if you kill him maybe organized crime on the Citadel isn't as much of a problem (eliminating Fist allowed C-sec a chance to look to their organization and clean house).

For me it's not so much Paragons should be punished but Renegades deserve a little love too.

[upsettingshorts]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Only if you assume all Renegade themes must be the same. They don't be. Similarly, not all paragon themes are the same either. It's natural that multiple themes can be put into contradiction with eachother, but it doesn't invalidate a grouping.

The differences in the case of Renegade Shepard are not natural or consistent.  A coldly expedient Shepard has no reason to necessarily also be pro-human.  He also has no reason to kill people without a logical reason, yet Renegade Shepard is all three of those things at once.  The fact they are grouped by mechanic that lumps them together compounds the issue, but isn't the cause of it.

The problem is the writing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 octobre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

To date, there have been... maybe one decision, keeping the Collector Base, to which the Renegade decision might be better... or might not, as plenty of people have voiced expectations that keeping the base is traded off by losing equivalent support from the Council races. In which case it's a zero-net-sum gain.

Truthfully, we don't yet know that. In ME2 there was no impact of ME1 choices other than some cameos, which I am glad I had only two of. The Galaxy must be big enough to not encounter the same people all the time...

We'll only see when the "payday" arrives in ME3. And I think BioWare can make it all unexpected, yet still both plausible and fair towards all players. I would call it a balanced assymetrical reward appraoch, like this:

ME1 Coucil lives (risky-paragon) => Aliens +50
         Coucil dies (cautious-renegade) => Humans -50

ME2 Base blown (caustious-paragon) => Aliens -50
         Base kept (risky-renegade) =>Humans +50

This way "pure" players (both paragon and renegade) will find themselves in ME3 right where they started. Rewarded will be those that have taken the most risky approach. The too cautious will be punished. But this assymetry against the cautious players can be balanced out by whatever the ME3 "Biggest Choice" will be, only it will have to have 4 options,  to not upset the para/rene balance this time, like this: risky-paragon&risky-renegade (= bad) & cautious-paragon&cautious-renegade (= good).

Anyway, BioWare should try and make it all interesting, instead of just letting everyone shape out the Galaxy the way they want to see it with no punishment and no strings attached, which would just cheapen the whole concept of the choices' carry-over

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 17 octobre 2010 - 05:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Only if you assume all Renegade themes must be the same. They don't be. Similarly, not all paragon themes are the same either. It's natural that multiple themes can be put into contradiction with eachother, but it doesn't invalidate a grouping.

The differences in the case of Renegade Shepard are not natural or consistent.  A coldly expedient Shepard has no reason to necessarily also be pro-human.  He also has no reason to kill people without a logical reason, yet Renegade Shepard is all three of those things at once.  The fact they are grouped by mechanic that lumps them together compounds the issue, but isn't the cause of it.

The problem is the writing.

Again, assuming all Renegade traits must coincide with eachother. Renagons/paragades exist because you can subscribe to one aspect of a Renegade model without subscribing to them all.

The problem is in your acceptance of a model.

[upsettingshorts]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
ME1 Coucil lives (risky-paragon) => Aliens +50
         Coucil dies (cautious-renegade) => Humans -50

Im not disagreeing with your post at all.

But I noticed you, like Bioware, haven't really accounted much at all for the Paragon-leaning ME1 Shepard's decision to "Concentrate on Sovereign."

It was the choice on my first playthrough of ME1, when I was playing pure Paragon, I wasn't going to risk that decision.  Sovereign had to go.  I even remember lecturing Udina about how it wasn't a power grab and he should shut his pie-hole.  Even got the blue-screened Paragon ending.

I really never saw a difference in ME2 between that decision and cynically murdering the Council.

Anyway, I know that isn't what your post is about.  It just felt like a good opportunity to raise the issue.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, assuming all Renegade traits must coincide with eachother. Renagons/paragades exist because you can
subscribe to one aspect of a Renegade model without subscribing to them all.

The problem is in your acceptance of a model.

I'm not assuming.  The game tells me they must coincide, it even demands that they do or I will not be able to activate Renegade options without cheating.  The model is there, it demands acceptance as long as you are unwilling to cheat.

The fact is I don't accept the model, and cheat to get rid of it.

I feel like we're not really arguing about the same thing, here.  Or we're misunderstanding each other.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 octobre 2010 - 05:10 .

[SimonTheFrog]

The whole subject makes me wonder if BioWare uses a vision holder who checks all the dialogs for consistency with the paragon and renegade axis. I mean we know that the stuff is written by a whole team of writers and of course they come up with different concepts of renegade, which makes it natural that it feels "diverse". But I must admit it is crossing the line of artistic interpretation to "makes no sense and feels like a badly written computer game" a couple of times simply because of weird renegade options (and consequences thereof).



But since there are so many many dialogs and options, we should be forgiving if some are weird.



But yes, i support the wish for some more clarity on what renegade actually means and some more interesting consequences for renegade choices (not just nothing at least).

[Annie_Dear]

rwilli80 wrote...

I don't remember but isn't letting Blake live in ME1 a renegade option? I thought trying to arrest her was the paragon action.

It depends. If you have enough Paragon points you'll be able to charm her, and voilá.

Also letting Fist live should have bite the paragon in the ass instead of just some stupid dialog he could have tried to come at you for bringing down his criminal enterprise on the citadel with a new gang or something or higher some mercs to try and bring you down

With what? The guy is on the run from the Shadow Broker and has nothing in his pockets. How and why would he come after Shepard? After all, Shepard spared his life, which Fist wanted him/her to do.

Also whatever happened with bring down the sky.. as a paragon you let the guy walk to save the workers, could have had a good encounter in me2 to resolve that even if the guy ended up as a blue sun and then you could have brought him some righteous judgment

We might see him in ME3. However, BDTS was a DLC and thus had very little to do with ME1 and ME2.

Modifié par Annie_Dear, 17 octobre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But I noticed you, like Bioware, haven't really accounted much at all for the Paragon-leaning ME1 Shepard's decision to "Concentrate on Sovereign."

There really isn't anything you see there is to account for. It's the outcomes that matter, not Shepard's carma. The outcome is the same as with the "pure" renegade option. To make it easier for you: it's Admiral Hackett, not Shepard, in command of the 5th Fleet. Shepard only gives tactical advice. And although Shepard's words are different between these two dialogue options, Admiral's Hackett words and the rest of the cinematic is all the same.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It was the choice on my first playthrough of ME1, when I was playing pure Paragon, I wasn't going to risk that decision.  Sovereign had to go.  I even remember lecturing Udina about how it wasn't a power grab and he should shut his pie-hole.  Even got the blue-screened Paragon ending.

The blue screened paragon ending and all depends on Shepard's carma. In-game intentions of the powerful politicians (including Udina) do not depend on it. And certainly they don't give a crap about what you have to lecture them about. Old Council dies = power-grab for the Alliance.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 17 octobre 2010 - 05:40 .

[PrinceLionheart]

DPSSOC wrote...

Now I admittedly don't know what Paragons get for that (always go after Balak, guessing it's a thank you email) but Renegades get a News Report about a candlelight vigil for the victims.  Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, we knew those people were going to die when we made the choice and we were willing to live with that, the game is merely reinforcing it.  Similarly the game should have (in my opinion) reinforced the consequences of the Paragon choice as well; perhaps a news report about an attack resulting in heavy casualties by Balak.  I have no issue with Paragons getting more allies in terms of the Rachni and the Council, but some Paragon choices should bite you in the ass, just as some Renegade options should turn out for the better.

Actually there's a news report saying he's still on the run if you went with the Paragon choice.

[pf17456]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Saibh wrote...
...I don't push people out windows or electrocute people or punch people who ask me snide questions. I only ever feel guilty when playing Renegade.

This is the point. Common morality is based on the sense of guilt. They also call it conscience. You feel it, you're in the wrong. You don't, you're OK. It's a conditioned reflex.

These "morals" are inherently fallible, because they depend on your mood, rather than reason, but on average they work quite fine, to keep the mass of ordinary people from deteriorating into chaos.

However, when it comes to the decisions that affect the fate of millions, which is reflected in the "Big Choices" situations in ME, the guilt-based Paragon morality is too irresponsible and irrational to be applied. And that's why we also call paragons metagamers.

You seem to imply that renegade choices are devoid of emotional influence and that you're OK if you have no conscience. I disagree on the basis of the whole being more than the sum of it's parts. A being composed of biochemical processes that produce emotion and the ability to utilize logic cannot divorce one from the other. Attempting to do so is illogical, self contradictory and likely impossible. Perhaps guilt is a motivating factor, perhaps not. Perhaps there are other factors like genuine concern or caring that are relative and not necessiarily bound to guilt. It could just as easily be said that renegades are motivated by hate, envy or an over reaction to not wanting to feel guilt, hardly logical.
When it comes to decisions affecting the fate of millions a rational choice would be one in which both emotion and logic converge and I agree that consequences are inherent in all decisions.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
A topic that bleeds into many a thread. So let's do one about this topic alone.

I, for one, don't mind Paragon items turning out well; generally speaking, Bioware writes them well, and while negative consequences could certainly lead to more drama, I'm not unsatisfied with what we have now.

Also, Renegades bitter about the outcome of Paragon choices (naming no names) are... well, wankers. Why worry about the outcome of choices you don't take?

No, that's not it. It's more a complaint that Renegades always seem to get the short end of the stick, in spite of Renegade being supposedly "pragmatic". If Renegade were pragmatic, shouldn't there be some advantage resulting from Renegade decisions?

Here's an example: if you save the Council in ME1, the alien species like you more. That's OK and very realistic. But if you play Renegade, do you get more support from the now all-human Council you helped bring to power? No, they're just as unsupportive as the old Council, *and* the alien species like you less. I.e. the game punishes you for your Renegade decision.

Then there is the fact that if you make a Paragon decision based on trust, the one you have trusted will *always* prove trustworthy. The one possible exception is Elnora, but if you speak with Pitne for enough, you'll know in advance she can't be trusted, so it isn't a gamble. I wonder if anything will come of it in ME3 if you let her go.

Paragon decisions are often gambles, while Renegade decisions are of the "better be safe" kind. That most of the gambles pay off seems to be, unfortunately, a design decision. But it's just not believable that *all* gambles pay off. So, what I wish in ME3 is that one of the big plot-related Paragon decisions made in ME1 and ME2 comes back to haunt you. In a big way. My preferred candidate is "destroying the Collector base".

[ElectronicFerret]

I'd prefer Renegade options having some better conclusions over Paragon options getting dumbed-down or forcibly worsened.



ME2 has, admittedly, few pullovers from ME1 for the Renegade; 'lots of people dead' is usually how it goes. And it does give you some badass moments and makes a few battles easier by getting the jump on someone, but yeah, I agree that there are some things that should be influenced a bit more -- maybe people get wind of your reputation and you can bluff through situations easier; maybe taking a hostile stance actually winds up pushing people together to aid you in ME3 somewhere, the way you can sometimes use the Renegade dialogue option to get what you want.



On that note, however, I *love* the way Paragon isn't translated into Lawful Stupid in the ME universe. If you're a good guy, it can be something as simple as giving a hug, tearing someone a new one verbally because they're being a cloaca, or diving in the way of a bullet for someone -- Shepard looks GOOD doing it. Heck, at least twice the Paragon option has been to pistol-whip someone instead of shooting them -- definitely not a pacifistic option. I dislike the idea of enforcing negative consequences for good options because 'that's the way things work'.



TLDR: Shepard should be awesome regardless of Renegade or Paragon paths. It's gorram Shepard.

[Phaedon]

Saibh wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

I think it is mostly repressed guilt. They can't deal with what they have done, and lash out at Paragons.

I think it's mostly the repressed guilt that makes people play Paragon. They know they aren't such goody-two-shoes IRL, as the society expects of them, so they can at least compensate for it in the game.

We, Renegades, the jerks, want to deny them this opportunity and make them face who they are, just as we do. We want BioWare to do them a favor.

...I don't push people out windows or electrocute people or punch people who ask me snide questions. I only ever feel guilty when playing Renegade.

I do.