303 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

I think building in at least one Paragon choice that bites you in the butt makes sense. Idealism and compassion can get you a lot of things, but it just can't get you everything.

My main choice that I want to affect Paragons negatively is the Geth/Heretic choice. Of all the moral gray area choices, this one makes the most sense to have turn out badly for paragons.

Non-zero probability of error, Legion himself doesn't know how reintegrating the Heretics that have been rewritten will affect him and his people, and the simple fact that rewriting is pointless anyway.

They had been 5% of the population back when they broke off but between Shepard's wanton slaughter all through ME1 and the witch hunts that followed the battle of the Citadel, they simply can't be that numerous anymore.

I play paragade by the way.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 18 octobre 2010 - 05:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

Moiaussi wrote...

I do agree that there should be times when the renegade decision proves to be the right one (and still think that might happen with Shiala and/or the Feros survivors, due to convincing the lab not to run the additional more invasive tests).

Somehow, there's always infected colonists even if I killed all of them.

[Tony Gunslinger]

I think we need to define what the words 'reward' and 'punishment' mean in this thread. If not, then it's going to be another circular discussion.

[pf17456]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I think we need to define what the words 'reward' and 'punishment' mean in this thread. If not, then it's going to be another circular discussion.

Generally speaking it seems that;

More game content = reward
Less content = punnishment

Paragon outcomes should sometimes have less than optimal consequences
Renegade outcomes should sometimes have possitive consequences

At least that's my take on what the general consensus is so far in this thread.

[Moiaussi]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

I do agree that there should be times when the renegade decision proves to be the right one (and still think that might happen with Shiala and/or the Feros survivors, due to convincing the lab not to run the additional more invasive tests).

Somehow, there's always infected colonists even if I killed all of them.

Just like presumably the Normandy doesn't consist only of the areas we see (since we see only a small portion), the colonists you killed were only those under direct control between you and the Thorian. Others could have been out on survey missions, or hiding under rocks... who knows (I agree that was a bit hokey). However they are still there for you to make  new choice on in ME2....

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Yeah I know. My point is that as a PLAYER I feel like I played the game wrong. What is the point of importing my Shepard if a default Shepard has a nearly identical experience?

Want to know a secret? Having someone that Shepard spared come back and try to kill him would still be a reward for the player in the form of additional content. If someone came after my Shepard for being so ruthless I as a a player might feel bad, for a bit (or Shepard might feel bad), but I'd hopefully be getting a fun gunfight and cutscene out of the deal.

So renegade (or paragon) can be 'wrong' while still rewarding the player.

While I understand what you are saying, don't you feel hypocritical for all your lengthy posts regarding the risks paragons subject the galaxy to and in the next breath complain if renegade actions don't create new and different risks for you to play with?

Look at it this way... with fewer allies in ME3, perhaps you will have more to fight personally?

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Hypocritical? I'm just playing fair here. In any regard someone getting pissed at my Shepard for his ruthlessness doesn't make the galaxy a more dangerous place. He still made the right call, but people hate him for it. That's fine.

A paragon may be loved, but when the galaxy is being devoured by the Reapers, the rachni, and the krogan they'll have only themselves to blame.

When you are not being clear if you are in or out of character, discussion becomes problematic and is arguably trolling, since you are not discussing in good faith with anyone actually giving their opinion rather than their character's.

Of course if you are not sure if you are speaking as you or as your character, you should probably seek professional help....

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

All I am trying to do is offer suggestions that would improve the game so that every player can enjoy it. I don't want to see paragon players "punished" in any real capacity. I'd like to see a few paragon decisions that don't turn out for the better, but I think that should be the exception not the rule. Paragon decisions should backfire only enough so that the player always has to think very seriously about what the consequences will be if they turn out to be wrong.

This part actually sounds very reasonable.

[CalJones]

As someone else said, it would have been better if, say, sparing Fist had resulted in him starting up a crime syndicate elsewhere.

Frankly, I would have liked to have heard that Balak committed another terrorist act (even as a primarily Paragon Shep I can never justify letting that bastard go, much as I feel bad for Kate Bowman).

[haand76]

Shandepared wrote...


All I am trying to do is offer suggestions that would improve the game so that every player can enjoy it. I don't want to see paragon players "punished" in any real capacity. I'd like to see a few paragon decisions that don't turn out for the better, but I think that should be the exception not the rule. Paragon decisions should backfire only enough so that the player always has to think very seriously about what the consequences will be if they turn out to be wrong.

I want this.

[GodWood]

My main Shepard is a renegade however I do also play quite a few paragons and these paragons are quite idealistic and ultimately take risks that could actually doom the whole galaxy.

Now the fact that these choices never go wrong just cheapens all of the "BIG CHOICES".





Theres also the fact that some idealists really need to be put in their place.

[Foolsfolly]

If the Council's indoctrinated then saving them in ME1 could turn out very bad indeed.....

[Schattenkeil]

I don't know. I find it a little cheap. I would have found it better if you had to really work to avoid conflicts between the rachni and the rest of the galaxy. If you choose to let them live you're responsible for them and that's as much a burden as it is a boon so to say.

Though in Mass Effect 2 it was neither, really. Just an encounter on Illium.

I just find it cheap that playing the good guy invariably leads to positive consequences. Being an idialist should not be that easy under that circumstances. It would make the decision to stand up to a certain ideal more meaningful if you knew that your decisions can actually "bite you in the ass", as Wrex puts it when you let the rachni queen go. I am not a paragon because I know that it leads invariably to the best immediate consequences, but because it's the only path to a galaxy of mutual understanding. Because I think it's important for the future to live the values I cherish. That's often a difficult decision and it would be a lot more meaningful if it didn't mean you'd end up invariably on the winning side, so to say.

I think ideal would be that a paragon path would ultimately lead to united galaxy with a wide open council and a renegade path to human-dominated galaxy with a lot of personal power and wealth for Shepard. The problem with this approach is: What do you do with players who actual decide on a case by case by basis and have a mix of paragon and renegade decisions... Well, every choice needs it's own consequences and you need to blend all this into a greater hole.

I for an instance chose the paragon  answer in virtually every major instance, except when it came to the quarians and geth. I chose to destroy the heretics and I didn't give a recommendation to the admirality board but chose "Tali is with me" as answer, which leads to the admiral who wishes to continue to experiment to get the geth back in line the upper hand. Which was fine with me at that point.

The question is: How do you blend this line of renegade decisions, which will, if  it makes a difference at all, lead to the quarians getting an upper hand over the geth rather than a mutual understang, love peace, and flowers, into otherwise relatively consequent line of paragon decisions?

[Schattenkeil]

pf17456 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I think we need to define what the words 'reward' and 'punishment' mean in this thread. If not, then it's going to be another circular discussion.

Generally speaking it seems that;

More game content = reward
Less content = punnishment

Paragon outcomes should sometimes have less than optimal consequences
Renegade outcomes should sometimes have possitive consequences

At least that's my take on what the general consensus is so far in this thread.

Well, there is a difficulty  in the word sometimes, though. That would imply that there is still a path of ideal choices. Only that it is neither the pure paragon nor the pure renegade path.
Ideally every choice should have a blend of positive and negative consequences that you can actually feel in the game.

[lovgreno]

Neither paragon nor renegade decisions should be rewarded or punished. There should however be unforeseen complications due to all choices just like in real life. Whatever BioWare writers decide to do I hope they will suprise me in some way.

[Kaiser Shepard]

One could argue that not having that one encounter with Fist or the 'rachni-ambassador' is a reward in itself.

Personally, I could care less if the only things one can miss out on are small conversations like these. Especially after the whole screw-up with Dragon Age, where one of the choices from Origins is clearly presented as the wrong one in Awakening by not being acknowledged in any way.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 18 octobre 2010 - 02:13 .

[Finnish Dragon]

Foolsfolly wrote...

If the Council's indoctrinated then saving them in ME1 could turn out very bad indeed.....

I mostly play as Paragon but I would love the irony on that. On the other hand how would the story go with the full human council. Would they be just paranoid fools or would they also be indoctrinated as well?

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

Something we can agree on.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

One could argue that not having that one encounter with Fist or the 'rachni-ambassador' is a reward in itself.

Personally, I could care less if the only things one can miss out on are small conversations like these. Especially after the whole screw-up with Dragon Age, where one of the choices from Origins is clearly presented as the wrong one in Awakening by not being acknowledged in any way.

Which one is that?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Calling for other players to be punished for their choices sounds a lot like the crap that goes on in MMOs all the time where certain players are constantly whining and screaming and crying about how classes they don't play need to be "nerfed".

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 18 octobre 2010 - 03:21 .

[Woodsworth]

I'm not a fan of any morality system. I wish games would just do away with it. Or at least remove the blue/red bar system. All it does is force players to create unrealistic characters. While some people (like myself) like to play Shepards that express both paragon and renegade attitudes, the game itself still tries to push you into the realm of good or bad. And it is rather ignorant to say that exclusive content should only be offered to one side of the good/evil spectrum. It shouldn't be offered at all.

The whole point of a game based heavily on the choices you make is that each decision has an outcome. You should be rewarded as a player for making that choice in either a good or bad way, whether it involves a simple change in dialog or an in depth mission. In the end, my game experience should be unique based on the morality I place on myself. At the moment, I sometimes feel obligated to make a certain decision because the game tells me that up is good and down is bad. My favorite examples of the forced morality in the game are the renegade interrupts that involve surprising hostile enemies (someone mentions this already). Why the heck is this considered renegade? Why does the paragon route in this situation involve being stupid. I'm not distracting a target by shooting baby; I just don't want to hear him ramble on about his races superiority. Now I can't charm my teammates out of an argument. Why the hell not. Do they not think I'm nice enough anymore because I shot a hostile enemy while he was talking? Did they think it was rude to not let him finish?

I realize that the game wants to add or remove options/situations based on how our Shepard has handled past events, but why do they have to be so well defined as good/bad. If I spare a certain asari scientist and she eventually comes back and now I have to fight a bunch or half crazed Krogans, let me decide how I feel about it. If I decided to kill the rachni, what if I find out there was another race that was only kept away by the "singing" the rachni did ( I realize that doesn't make sense but just go with it). Instead of giving my +15 to my dick scale, let me decide if I regret that decision.

If something like this happens, we wouldn't have to worry about whether renegade/paragon is better. We would be debating whether this choice or that one was better. I feel that would be a much better place to be.