195 réponses à ce sujet

[Homey C-Dawg]

 Wouldn't really affect me too much. On my canon playthroughs I ignore the paragon/renegade routes and just make the closest choice to what I would really do, which is usually about a 70-75%paragon / 25-30%renegade split . Paragon and renegade playthroughs would be the same for me, since I can can recognize a paragon choice from a renegade one regardless of color or placement indicators.

I have no concerns with the portrayal of "paragon is good, renegade is bad", as this pretty much matches my opinion of good and bad. Renegade Shepard is fun to play as and watch do what he does, but I wouldn't be able to stand him in real life. Paragon Shepard is a good role model, even though his paragon "solutions" wouldn't usually work in real life.

I DO however wish the renegade path had some "exclusive" missions and sidequests like paragon Shepard does. I agree with Bioware's portrayal that being a renegade is bad, but I don't believe that makes it any less important or valid than the paragon path.

It's just my opinion though, no need to go spreading it around.

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 06 novembre 2010 - 09:00 .

[Ieldra]

tommyt_1994 wrote...
I hate the paragon=right, renegade=bad aspect of this game

Definitely. Renegade choices are *said* to be pragmatic, but they never are. Where there are real consequnences to a decision (as opposed to style choices as in Tali's trial or the team member conflicts), Renegade conversation choices (as opposed to interrupts) almost always turn out to have only undesirable consequences, while Paragon choices can be naive and still turn out right with that ridiculous Shepard luck. Of course killing the Rachni queen will result in the loss of an ally, never an enemy. Of course leaving the Council to die will result *only* in being hated by aliens without any benefit to be gained by the now all-human Council. And I predict that the Collector Base decision will have the same one-sidedness to it: no benefit in keeping it, which should realistically exist, the Renegade only ever gets the bad stuff.

I *HATE* that. And I don't use that word lightly. I hate it even more because the Renegade end-game decisions in both games are so very reasonable that the Paragon choices come across as an embodiment of the "good is dumb" trope.

The setup cheapens both sides. Take ME1: I usually free the Rachni queen being fully conscious of the risk I take. That's the way a Paragon decision should be. But knowing that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained by the Renegade decision, why should I ever even consider it? Roleplaying or not, the one-sidedness of the consequences make you *learn* to ignore Renegade choices, which takes all meaning out of making a Paragon decision. 

I hate this... yes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 novembre 2010 - 09:56 .

[Jabarai]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

 Wouldn't really affect me too much. On my canon playthroughs I ignore the paragon/renegade routes and just make the closest choice to what I would really do, which is usually about a 70-75%paragon / 25-30%renegade split .....

Me too. I have two "canon" characters, the first of which is male, slightly idealistic (and acknowledges it) and around 85% paragon. The second is female, an extremely level-headed but still at least 75% paragon.

I have no concerns with the portrayal of "paragon is good, renegade is bad", as this pretty much matches my opinion of good and bad.....

Agreed. Why someone playing a renegade Shepard would even want to deny that is beyond me. Small surprise that none of the paragons even try, by the way. It's blatantly obvious that the scale never claims to value the player's decisions with respect to the Reaper threat.

Little by little, decision after decision, a pure renegade Shepard strives to make the universe a more violent, self-centered place devoid of empathy, while hoping it all ends up helping them in the fight against the Reapers. That is bad, if I ever learnt the definition of the word.

As to the original topic, I don't think players suddenly couldn't differentiate between the two stances if the locations and colours were omitted. It would just require longer, more accurate lines and perhaps explanations of what happens next for each selection.

[mineralica]

I'd love to see only persuasion system, no morality system at all - like it was in DA:O, when you never know how situation will end up.

Because what I've seen in ME2 was rather strange from point of roleplay. From start, paragons tell Mordin that genophage was an awful mistake. Then, speaking with Mordin, you suddenly found out that paragon'ish lines is about "genophage was right!". Strange, yes? Moreover, while talking to TIM or Tela Vasir or Garrus paragons constantly repeats "I hate Cerberus and its methods", but on Horizon answer "I don't work for Cerberus - only with them and only while they're fighting with Collectors" is lower-right - where usually renegade options are; also on Collectors' ship - answer "I knew Cerberus isn't trustworthy!" even gives renegade points.

I don't think lack of morality scale would make my Sheps renegades - but it'll create possibility to be neutral and, at some point, deeper character

[Jabarai]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I *HATE* that. And I don't use that word lightly. I hate it even more because the Renegade end-game decisions in both games are so very reasonable that the Paragon choices come across as an embodiment of the "good is dumb" trope.

No. For both games.

The setup cheapens both sides. Take ME1: I usually free the Rachni queen being fully conscious of the risk I take. That's the way a Paragon decision should be. But knowing that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained by the Renegade decision, why should I ever even consider it?

Knowing? How would your character know that? Killing the queen rids the universe of a potential problem. Or if you listen to the creature at all, them causing further harm to the galactic status quo seems unlikely.

Moreover, what possible actual, direct benefit could come out from killing the queen?

Roleplaying or not, the one-sidedness of the consequences make you *learn* to ignore Renegade choices, which takes all meaning out of making a Paragon decision. 

I hate this... yes.

It's also called metagaming. I hate it, too.

[Ieldra]

Jabarai wrote...
Little by little, decision after decision, a pure renegade Shepard strives to make the universe a more violent, self-centered place devoid of empathy, while hoping it all ends up helping them in the fight against the Reapers. That is bad, if I ever learnt the definition of the word.

A Renegade can be callous, can be bad, no doubt, if you want to interpret it that way. But....

Consider the decision at the end of "Bring Down the Sky" in ME1? Really, what *is* better, to let a terrorist go who has the stated goal of killing millions for the short-term benefit of saving a few hostages? Or to ignore the hostages and go for Balak? This is what I think Renegade is about: long-term consequences against short-term empathy, however painful that may be for you. Renegades don't need to be callous (though admittedly you won't get to be a 100% Renegade without being a jerk here and there). I've explored this in my fanfic "A Promise of Love and Death". Don't tell me Renegade Shepard doesn't feel the pain resulting from what he considers necessary to do. It may give him nightmares for the rest of his life, but he'll still do it. The Paragon makes decisions based on empathy and hopes for the best, but the compassionate Renegade sacrifices his peace of mind and heart to ensure he doesn't need luck or fate to be on his side. I venture the opinion that the latter is more heroic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 novembre 2010 - 10:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Isn't Balak viewed by his men to be an overreaching fanatic? I have a feeling that even if he's let go, support for his later actions will be minimal, assuming he doesn't get fragged by a subordinate on the way back.

[Dean_the_Young]

And yet they're still working with him, for him, to make his overreach possible.



Fanatics move the world. Don't write them off and marginalize them.

[Xilizhra]

No, I mean that they didn't start considering such until he pulled that asteroid stunt.

[Dean_the_Young]

And why will the next group frag him?



They were scared of him.

[Xilizhra]

No, the current one, unless you kill every single person except Balak.

[Dean_the_Young]

Either his current lieutenant and some of his men get the hell out of dodge, in which case they can't shoot Balak, or you kill them, in which case they can't shoot Balak.

[Xilizhra]

Perhaps I'll actually be able to play the thing today.

[Zulu_DFA]

I believe Balak was connected to the Cult of the Word, or whatever it is called, the one that the Mad Prophet propagates on Omega. It's only a matter of time before he pulls off another terror attack if let loose. Of course, he uses some Batarians that are there for the profit only, but he has his own followers too, like the bodyguards, the ones you fight if you engage him.

[Xilizhra]

I suppose we'll see if he actually does anything about this in ME3. Though I suspect that if he does, it'll be another attack that you have a chance to stop, and not an email saying that lots of people have died.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 06 novembre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Even if there is no such an e-mail in ME3, in ME1 when you are presented with the choice you have to assume that such possibility is the "string" attached to the paragon option.

[Xilizhra]

We'll see. It may happen, it may not. If ME3 doesn't have an answer, then I guess you can make up your own interpretation of what happens.

[tommyt_1994]

Thank you for holding down the fort while I was gone Ieldra, you have said right about all of my feelings on the topic, just in a more intelligent sounding manner of course .

@Jabarai: You were discussing how the rachni doing anything would be "unlikely". Why do you think it's unlikely? The rachni, when first discovered, attacked on sight and didn't listen to any negoiation talks. *Cues "they were indoctrinated!" argument* We have no proof of that, the queen very well could have enslaved that asari to track down Shepard and feed him some bs story to keep him off their back. Not only did the rachni refuse to listen to peace talks, but they were trying to kill all life in the galaxy. They weren't going to stop. And if it weren't for the krogan, the rachni would have succeeded. By letting the rachni go, you are endangering all life in the galaxy based on the queen's word, because if she's lying, we're all screwed. The krogan have been neutered, we have nothing to stop them.


I also dislike people associating pure renegades in these games with all renegades. If you're a pure renegade, you're a douche plain and simple. But that's only because Bioware included the douchey/funny lines with the renegade side of the morality system. But there is such a thing as a compassionate renegade. Who are nice to right about everyone but make the renegade big choices, for non-douchey reasons such as the council/rachni/collector base/etc.

The same goes for renegades on these boards who consider all paragons as idealistic morons, not all paragons are like that either.

Modifié par tommyt_1994, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Zulu_DFA]

We don't have to see anything. I repeat. You can enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling inside all you want upon saving the hostages, but nothing can cancel the fact that you've let a dangerous terrorist go loose. Same goes to Zaeed's loyalty mission.

[tommyt_1994]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

We don't have to see anything. I repeat. You can enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling inside all you want upon saving the hostages, but nothing can cancel the fact that you've let a dangerous terrorist go loose. Same goes to Zaeed's loyalty mission.

But Zaeed's mission is quite different. Zaeed set that factory on fire, not Vido. He's the one putting lives at risk for no good reason. Does he really think that we couldn't take care of a couple mercs? Since when could we not? My Shepard had to put Zaeed in his place, because going the renegade route is kind of telling Zaeed that his behavior is alright on missions. Which isn't true, Shepard is the leader here not Zaeed.

Note that I didn't let Balak go in BDtS. These 2 decisions have a lot of different, though important variables.

[Xilizhra]

Not only did the rachni refuse to listen to peace talks, but they were trying to kill all life in the galaxy.

...since we had no ability to communicate with them, how do you know this?

We don't have to see anything. I repeat. You can enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling inside all you want upon saving the hostages, but nothing can cancel the fact that you've let a dangerous terrorist go loose. Same goes to Zaeed's loyalty mission.

And each of us will interpret future events that aren't shown however we see fit. If you choose to believe that my action would doom other people, feel free; it doesn't affect me.

[Zulu_DFA]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

We don't have to see anything. I repeat. You can enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling inside all you want upon saving the hostages, but nothing can cancel the fact that you've let a dangerous terrorist go loose. Same goes to Zaeed's loyalty mission.

But Zaeed's mission is quite different. Zaeed set that factory on fire, not Vido. He's the one putting lives at risk for no good reason. Does he really think that we couldn't take care of a couple mercs? Since when could we not? My Shepard had to put Zaeed in his place, because going the renegade route is kind of telling Zaeed that his behavior is alright on missions. Which isn't true, Shepard is the leader here not Zaeed.

Note that I didn't let Balak go in BDtS. These 2 decisions have a lot of different, though important variables.

Zorya is Zaeed's mission. Shepard is there only to provide him with fire support. He says so: "I'm all yours, Shepard, once you let me play this one as I like". But this is not important when it comes to the choice itself. Nor is important who put the "innocents" in jeopardy.

The choice is very similar in BDTS and on Zorya: save the "innocents" or take out the bad guy.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:46 .

[Xilizhra]

Why did you put "innocents" in quotes?

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why did you put "innocents" in quotes?

Because they are not in court, and it's not the Judgement Day.

[Xilizhra]

I don't think those are the only two places to use the word. Especially since in court, the term is "not guilty."

To put it another way, what the hell are you on about?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:48 .