303 réponses à ce sujet

[Burdokva]

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?

I read you second post that you play Paragon because you feel it's the right to do - I generally do the same, although within the game my personal canon Shepard is more neutral. Good and helpful towards people in general, but absolutely unforgiving in certain situations. I always kill Fist, for example.

Still, I feel that some Paragon decision while being perfectly fine from a personal, moral standpoint, would result in an utter disaster. I know chances are minor, but for example rewriting the Geth should be the wrong decision - you're stopping them from brainwashing their fellow Geth by doing the same? And truly, are we certain that Sovereign somehow manipulated them or simply some Geth decided to follow him voluntary, as a sign of rising individuality?

You know, being "good" in the strict meaning of the word isn't always the right thing to do in life. It can have consequences that out-weight being "bad" sometimes. That's what I would like to see in Mass Effect 3.

Otherwise, the great promise of the original, already somewhat shaken by the "repercussions" in the sequel, will turn out to be a simple choice between playing a good guy or a jerk with a gun, instead of the "morally challenging " story we were promised.

If you want a black-and-white world, sure, I can understand. But those tend to be very boring... 

[CroGamer002]

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.

Let's see:

Killing Shiala is needed to save billions of people.
So does making genocide of Rachni.
Killing Wrex.
Letting Jacob's dad to shot himself/crew beat him until his death.
Making Jack to kill that crazy dude.
Destroying Geth Heretics instead of reprogramming for extra army.
Destroying Genophage cure.
Choosing Morinth and killing Samara.
Pushing Eclipse Merc from window.
Punching reporter.
.
.
.



Geez, Paragons are so irresponsible and irrational.

Modifié par Mesina2, 17 octobre 2010 - 06:33 .

[Count Viceroy]

Xilizhra wrote...

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?

You don't have to name any names, I saw that one coming a mile away. How about we reverse the question, why do you, as an obvious paragon player, care about renegade players complaining about getting the short end of the stick? You're already getting your cake, why does it seem to bother and suprise you that the other kid wants their cake too? Why do you feel that paragon is entitled to more (and unqestionably better) content? It's not about how *much* paragons get, as you seem to think, it's how *much less* renegades get.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 17 octobre 2010 - 06:54 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't care that you're complaining about being given the short end of the stick. I couldn't care less what happens in the Renegade options; by all means, I favor Renegades getting more rewards if it would please more people/

[CroGamer002]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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?

You don't have to name any names, I saw that one coming a mile away. How about we reverse the question, why do you, as an obvious paragon player, care about renegade players complaining about getting the short end of the stick? You're already getting your cake, why does it seem to bother and suprise you that the other kid wants their cake too? Why do you feel that paragon is entitled to more (and unqestionably better) content? It's not about how *much* paragons get, as you seem to think, it's how *much less* renegades get.

Because I believe any many others too think claiming somebody is playing RPG wrong is incredibly stupid and it's really hard not to respond to that.

Renegade, Paragon, whatever...

Modifié par Mesina2, 17 octobre 2010 - 07:02 .

[Count Viceroy]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't care that you're complaining about being given the short end of the stick. I couldn't care less what happens in the Renegade options; by all means, I favor Renegades getting more rewards if it would please more people/

Your op, along with calling them(us) wankers implies otherwise.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 17 octobre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Xilizhra]

I'm referring to the ones who are worried about Paragon outcomes. They should only be concerned with the outcomes of the decisions that they themselves make.

[Zulu_DFA]

pf17456 wrote...
When it comes to decisions affecting the fate of millions a rational choice would be one in which both emotion and logic converge.

This is BS, but arguing so is just asking for the H-word to be thrown at me, so I'll let it pass.

[doagrl]

I've read the complaints from the Renegade players but I just don't understand their reasoning.

If they killed/mistreated people in ME1 then obviously they shouldn't expect those people to turn around and show up again in ME2. They have already seen the endgame for these people/quests while the Paragon decisions are still playing out.

If Shiala is dead or you didn't help Parasini then no you aren't going to get to talk to them again but you do still get the quest to help out the Zhu's Hope survivors. And with the Rachni if you killed all the Rachni on Noveria then that's the end of the questline for you (unless Bioware pulls a surprise out of a hat for ME3). All the top scientists who worked on the Rachni project are dead or keeping their mouths shut in their own self interest (& the Volus is still insane) so who are you going to talk to about how you stomped out the evil Rachni since most people assume they've been dead for thousands of years.

The way a lot of Renegade complaints read is like they are pissed that Paragons get to carry over these quests or continue relationships picked up in the first game. But that's just
silly since they are the ones who took the quick fix to end those relationships in the first place while the Paragon "long view" is still playing its way to fruition.

Modifié par doagrl, 17 octobre 2010 - 07:39 .

[CalJones]

If you look at Dragon Age (Origins) it seems more balanced. For example, if you promote the more honorable candidate for the dwarvern throne, it has bad consequences for the dwarves in the epilogue because it turns out he sucks at being a king. Likewise, if you give food to the rioting peasants in Awakening, the epilogue suggests they riot again because their initial riot proved successful.

I understand the OP's dissatisfaction with the renegade path in ME2 - I have both paragon and renegade Shepards and whilst some of the renegade lines and interrupts are amusing, there is definitely a lack of carry over from the first game. No council (I thought they might have shown the replacement council, but no...), no cameos and the like...it seems being renegade in ME has no real reward in ME2.

[Geowil]

There is a simple solution to this problem, make two Shepard's or more, one Para and one Renegade... I actually have many, I think 3 Males and 2 Females.



Although, I agree, Karma is a ****.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

PrimalEden wrote...



Not so much renegade options are being punished but rather that's what happens when you choose the options to shoot everyone. Karma is demonstrated that way. Not an issue of being good or bad in morals, but just the consequences of what is done to people and their reactions (or lack thereof).

Karma is a superstition that seems reasonable by selective self-centric modeling that attributes a fallacy of correlating cause and effect to things the mind selectively remembers.



It's no more true than how depressed people can only see the bad things in life and ignore the good, while people in optimistic states of mind ignore and quickly forget annoyances and irritations.

Actually Karma is a very real part of some religions. Saying that it is not real is like saying to a Catholic that the bible is fake.

[Saberchic]

knightnblu wrote...

Well, I believe that Renegades have a gripe. Why can't they enjoy unique benefits in game sequels like the good guys? I think that ME3 should allow Renegades to experience arrest warrants, litigation, and the friends and relatives of those that they killed or screwed over to hunt them down and try to kill them. That way, we all get what we deserve and we can all be happy about it ;-p

:OI think this is a GREAT idea! LOL

I guess I can see some of the points made by other posters abou t how they feel it's unfair treatment because they think content is being cut, but I'm not sure what Renegades should expect when they kill a lot of people. Because, no, the victims can't come back. But having to answer for some of their actions later on makes sense to me and would be a Renegade only feature.

Would a solution like this be viable and keep everyone happy?

[Saibh]

CalJones wrote...

If you look at Dragon Age (Origins) it seems more balanced. For example, if you promote the more honorable candidate for the dwarvern throne, it has bad consequences for the dwarves in the epilogue because it turns out he sucks at being a king. Likewise, if you give food to the rioting peasants in Awakening, the epilogue suggests they riot again because their initial riot proved successful.
I understand the OP's dissatisfaction with the renegade path in ME2 - I have both paragon and renegade Shepards and whilst some of the renegade lines and interrupts are amusing, there is definitely a lack of carry over from the first game. No council (I thought they might have shown the replacement council, but no...), no cameos and the like...it seems being renegade in ME has no real reward in ME2.

Unlike ME, however, Dragon Age does not have a morality meter. You can come up with good reasons to but Bhelen on the throne and put Harrowmont on the throne for evil reasons. No one is telling you who is the "right" choice. So it never seems as if they're "punishing" any particular morality. If the same happens in ME, it's like telling you you were wrong.

Part of the problem is that most of the imports were just cameos or e-mails from past side missions. There wasn't a lot of weight to what you did in the previous game--sparing Rana doesn't affect anything, nor does killing Shiala. All you get is a cameo. Because of this, they can't really give anything extra to trigger-happy Renegades since they killed off their cameos.

[pf17456]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

pf17456 wrote...
When it comes to decisions affecting the fate of millions a rational choice would be one in which both emotion and logic converge.

This is BS, but arguing so is just asking for the H-word to be thrown at me, so I'll let it pass.

The reasoning comprising my statement is that if you are in fact a being composed of both emotion and logic then making a decision pretending that either one or the other doesn't exist makes no sense. Like having a fight with one hand tied behind your back.

[Elyvern]

Saberchic wrote...

:OI think this is a GREAT idea! LOL

I guess I can see some of the points made by other posters abou t how they feel it's unfair treatment because they think content is being cut, but I'm not sure what Renegades should expect when they kill a lot of people. Because, no, the victims can't come back. But having to answer for some of their actions later on makes sense to me and would be a Renegade only feature.

Would a solution like this be viable and keep everyone happy?

Not all content is made equal,and a decision like that just indiscriminately throws in content for the sake of throwing it in, when in actual fact it will further reinforce the tendency to see paragon as the "right decision". You cannot assume that all renegade decisions that end in killing are done out of cold-bloodedness. There is enough room to interpret a number of them as pragmatic decisions to prevent a problem from rearing its head again. That a paragon puts his trust in blind faith and turns out to be 100% correct is the issue that needs to be addressed, not punish some renegades for rational behaviour.

Modifié par Elyvern, 17 octobre 2010 - 08:14 .

[pf17456]

I think there's truth in the saying ' no good deed goes unpunished' and I hope the devs consider that for ME3.

[Jabarai]

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.

Would it be a stretch to imagine some of the Renegade players being quiet, unsocial wussies in real life and compensating for it in a game?

[mosor]

doagrl wrote...

If they killed/mistreated people in ME1 then obviously they shouldn't expect those people to turn around and show up again in ME2. They have already seen the endgame for these people/quests while the Paragon decisions are still playing out.

No one argues that. Why they do suggest is an alternative than some randomly generated character. No Shiala? Why not Lizbeth Baynham? No Parsini, why not Meeko Matsuo? Ect ect.

The way a lot of Renegade complaints read is like they are pissed that Paragons get to carry over these quests or continue relationships picked up in the first game. But that's just
silly since they are the ones who took the quick fix to end those relationships in the first place while the Paragon "long view" is still playing its way to fruition.

No. The people who gripe at paragon decisions, because in every case that matters, paragon decisons result in positive consequences regardless of how trusting or naive the choice was. Really, if you're going to play paragon, you check your brain at the door and just click the top option. If you're going to play Renegade, you think more about which renegade actions are for the best, and which ones are just sociopathic that do no good. Personally I think they did a better job with Dragon Age, where the good, merciful option didn't always lead to the best outcome.

Modifié par mosor, 17 octobre 2010 - 08:43 .

[mosor]

Jabarai 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.

Would it be a stretch to imagine some of the Renegade players being quiet, unsocial wussies in real life and compensating for it in a game?

Well you get to kill things regardless of which path you chose, so a wussy who wants to be tough can compensate for that in either path. Think some paragons make their choices  because they want positive attention from NPC's in a game to feel good about themselves. Renegades,don't really care what people think. They do what they feel is necessary to solve problems before they become bigger problems.

Modifié par mosor, 17 octobre 2010 - 08:52 .

[Count Viceroy]

Jabarai wrote...

Would it be a stretch to imagine some of the Renegade players being quiet, unsocial wussies in real life and compensating for it in a game?

Hilarious to see people whip out their psychology degree and start analyzing. Give you some points for effort at least.

[Markinator_123]

mosor wrote...

doagrl wrote...

If they killed/mistreated people in ME1 then obviously they shouldn't expect those people to turn around and show up again in ME2. They have already seen the endgame for these people/quests while the Paragon decisions are still playing out.

No one argues that. Why they do suggest is an alternative than some randomly generated character. No Shiala? Why not Lizbeth Baynham? No Parsini, why not Meeko Matsuo? Ect ect.

The way a lot of Renegade complaints read is like they are pissed that Paragons get to carry over these quests or continue relationships picked up in the first game. But that's just
silly since they are the ones who took the quick fix to end those relationships in the first place while the Paragon "long view" is still playing its way to fruition.

No. The people who gripe at paragon decisions, because in every case that matters, paragon decisons result in positive consequences regardless of how trusting or naive the choice was. Really, if you're going to play paragon, you check your brain at the door and just click the top option. If you're going to play Renegade, you think more about which renegade actions are for the best, and which ones are just sociopathic that do no good. Personally I think they did a better job with Dragon Age, where the good, merciful option didn't always lead to the best outcome.

I wonder how many people were suprised by their results in the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice

[mosor]

Markinator_123 wrote...

mosor wrote...

doagrl wrote...

If they killed/mistreated people in ME1 then obviously they shouldn't expect those people to turn around and show up again in ME2. They have already seen the endgame for these people/quests while the Paragon decisions are still playing out.

No one argues that. Why they do suggest is an alternative than some randomly generated character. No Shiala? Why not Lizbeth Baynham? No Parsini, why not Meeko Matsuo? Ect ect.

The way a lot of Renegade complaints read is like they are pissed that Paragons get to carry over these quests or continue relationships picked up in the first game. But that's just
silly since they are the ones who took the quick fix to end those relationships in the first place while the Paragon "long view" is still playing its way to fruition.

No. The people who gripe at paragon decisions, because in every case that matters, paragon decisons result in positive consequences regardless of how trusting or naive the choice was. Really, if you're going to play paragon, you check your brain at the door and just click the top option. If you're going to play Renegade, you think more about which renegade actions are for the best, and which ones are just sociopathic that do no good. Personally I think they did a better job with Dragon Age, where the good, merciful option didn't always lead to the best outcome.

I wonder how many people were suprised by their results in the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice

Or in Awakenings when you hold those trials, or how you dealt with the rebelling peasants. That was cool sh*t.

[doagrl]

Elyvern wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

:OI think this is a GREAT idea! LOL

I guess I can see some of the points made by other posters abou t how they feel it's unfair treatment because they think content is being cut, but I'm not sure what Renegades should expect when they kill a lot of people. Because, no, the victims can't come back. But having to answer for some of their actions later on makes sense to me and would be a Renegade only feature.

Would a solution like this be viable and keep everyone happy?

Not all content is made equal,and a decision like that just indiscriminately throws in content for the sake of throwing it in, when in actual fact it will further reinforce the tendency to see paragon as the "right decision". You cannot assume that all renegade decisions that end in killing are done out of cold-bloodedness. There is enough room to interpret a number of them as pragmatic decisions to prevent a problem from rearing its head again. That a paragon puts his trust in blind faith and turns out to be 100% correct is the issue that needs to be addressed, not punish some renegades for rational behaviour.

Why do you say that it is 100% correct? 

If you save the Council you are still going to be in the same position as someone who let the Council die at the start of ME2. Your position is not better or worse it is equal and that's the major decision that you had to make in ME1.

No one is being punished it's just that no choice is being given an edge over the other which considering this is an rpg and there is no wrong way to play it is the correct decision by Bioware. What a lot of rengades seems to want is for the game to make the Renegade decisions the "right" path rather than keeping it all fairly down the middle.

[doagrl]

mosor wrote...

doagrl wrote...

If they killed/mistreated people in ME1 then obviously they shouldn't expect those people to turn around and show up again in ME2. They have already seen the endgame for these people/quests while the Paragon decisions are still playing out.

No one argues that. Why they do suggest is an alternative than some randomly generated character. No Shiala? Why not Lizbeth Baynham? No Parsini, why not Meeko Matsuo? Ect ect.

The way a lot of Renegade complaints read is like they are pissed that Paragons get to carry over these quests or continue relationships picked up in the first game. But that's just
silly since they are the ones who took the quick fix to end those relationships in the first place while the Paragon "long view" is still playing its way to fruition.

No. The people who gripe at paragon decisions, because in every case that matters, paragon decisons result in positive consequences regardless of how trusting or naive the choice was. Really, if you're going to play paragon, you check your brain at the door and just click the top option. If you're going to play Renegade, you think more about which renegade actions are for the best, and which ones are just sociopathic that do no good. Personally I think they did a better job with Dragon Age, where the good, merciful option didn't always lead to the best outcome.

Maybe that's how you play the game but it's definitely not how I play. I always end up more Paragon than Renegade because my first thought isn't just to "get the job done" which is the Renegade way. And that's why I don't know and I'm okay with not knowing how many of my decisions will end up "right" over the course of the whole series.

For example, I saved Rana Thanoptis and she showed up again in ME2 not exactly walking the straight & narrow. If she shows up in ME3 as the galaxy's most vile war criminal then my Paragon decision all the way back in ME1 would have been incorrect and I will pay for it.

Of course she could also turn up in ME3 as Shepard's loyal ally in stopping the
Reaper invasion. We don't know how that will turn out , you would probably call that blind faith I call it a calculated risk with a potential for great rewards. Both the Renegade (kill her before she causes you more problems) and the Paragon (let her go and give her the chance to turn it around) are valid ways to play the game.

Modifié par doagrl, 17 octobre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Elyvern]

doagrl wrote...

Elyvern wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

:OI think this is a GREAT idea! LOL

I guess I can see some of the points made by other posters abou t how they feel it's unfair treatment because they think content is being cut, but I'm not sure what Renegades should expect when they kill a lot of people. Because, no, the victims can't come back. But having to answer for some of their actions later on makes sense to me and would be a Renegade only feature.

Would a solution like this be viable and keep everyone happy?

Not all content is made equal,and a decision like that just indiscriminately throws in content for the sake of throwing it in, when in actual fact it will further reinforce the tendency to see paragon as the "right decision". You cannot assume that all renegade decisions that end in killing are done out of cold-bloodedness. There is enough room to interpret a number of them as pragmatic decisions to prevent a problem from rearing its head again. That a paragon puts his trust in blind faith and turns out to be 100% correct is the issue that needs to be addressed, not punish some renegades for rational behaviour.

Why do you say that it is 100% correct? 

If you save the Council you are still going to be in the same position as someone who let the Council die at the start of ME2. Your position is not better or worse it is equal and that's the major decision that you had to make in ME1.

No, a renegade's position is worse. Because the citadel races basically turns hostile against Shepard. Even if this is an issue where a paragon's choice doesn't pay out positively, it still pans out more negative for a renegade.

No one is being punished it's just that no choice is being given an edge over the other which considering this is an rpg and there is no wrong way to play it is the correct decision by Bioware. What a lot of rengades seems to want is for the game to make the Renegade decisions the "right" path rather than keeping it all fairly down the middle.

Please read the post I was making that particular point to again. The poster was talking about slapping renegades behind bars for their deeds and being villified as a way to generate more content for them.

Modifié par Elyvern, 17 octobre 2010 - 09:19 .