228 réponses à ce sujet

[Gashie]

 This discussion has certainly taken a nice turn, sincerely. 

Dave, for me it's hard to compare two different spectrums and expect them to be "equally" fulfilling. How would we define the balance of fulfillment between the two? I apologise but killing someone and losing some dialogue isn't the best analogy (because well, he's dead), but I do get the gist of the root situation. 

So to summarise, in very loose terms, renegades should get the same feel of epic in the decisions they make, which I totally agree with. But when we're playing renegades isn't a larger portion of the fulfillment itself being able to do whatever you want, getting things done and the instant gratification? How do we go about defining what is a "bad" ending/outcome for a renegade? (Consider, taking over the galaxy with fear and dominance could be classed as a "good" bad ending?)

If you bind the rules and outcomes of one particular set of choices as being more fulfilling than the other, then it is simply a matter of the after-content of your choices, unfortunately, not being made available to you, which I agree should be addressed. Honest question here: do you think more alternate rewards (in whatever form) and mission path lead-ups for the same achievement perhaps could help? Or is there something more specific the renegade wishes to see happen?

Hence that is why I believe there should be choice. And let it be expanded. Equally. If possible. In as WIDE a spectrum as possible. It's a monumental task to satisfy such a diverse group of opinions and players. But then again if ME were linear would we enjoy it as much?

Well the good thing is the 1000 different so called variables cannot be debated or faulted so long as ME3 isn't out yet, so we shall see.

Sorry if I'm confusing you more Dave (and myself even) or if that didn't make sense!  Sometimes I'm glad I'm playing games like these and not creating them instead. Too many factors to consider. 

Modifié par Gashie, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Aigyl]

As someone whose 'canon' is Paragon I wouldn't mind the decisions backfiring once in a while, as long as it's logical and I can see how it got there, like the Harrowmont / Bhelen decision in Dragon Age. If you crown Harrowmont, looking back you can see how his reign ended up being a sucky one, not "and a random rock falled and killed all the casteless, all because you crowned Harrowmont, you monster"

In ME3, if you take an insane risk to try and save everyone, I would actually like it to backfire, if you could see how taking that risk was a stupid thing to do. I would not like "freed the Rachni Queen in ME1? Turns out she got indoctrinated and killed thousands of people, sucker!"

[Dave of Canada]

I do understand how a dead person cannot reappear, how that shouldn't mean there should never be a reference to it. When I'm playing through my Renegade who killed the Rachni Queen, there's nothing to reference "Oh hey, you did that choice." just like if I played the Default ME2 playthrough. The default kills off all future plot potential, meaning why should a Renegade player even do that decision if there's no plot potential for it in the future?

Simple fix, add plot designed for somebody who did that choice anyways. The default ME2 can have no reference to it at all, just play along like if it never happened and the Renegade should have at least more than say... nothing. Have a few Krogan praising Shepard's name, have a radio broadcast mention how ExoGeni is out of buisness because of the Rachni thing (the Rachni are kept secret if spared, if killed they wouldn't need to keep it secret).

It's simple, it's small but still makes the player feel like they impacted something instead of having done nothing. An email would've sufficed.

Also the whole "bad ending" feel is from how everything a Renegade does, there's a lot of foreshadowing that it's the wrong decision and the player should feel bad.

Note: The following examples are assuming you follow the "pure" Renegade / Paragon path, something I'd never advocate but just using for my example as it's mostly turned into pure paragon vs pure renegade.

I'll take the two big decisions for example, pretend you're playing a pure Renegade and you kill the Council - they call you a ruthless opportunist that allowed humanity to rule with an iron fist while there's dark music in the backround. If you're a paragon, heroic music and bright lights are shined from the backround and everybody praises how amazing you are.

I felt "Meh, that's pretty good" until I imported into Mass Effect 2 where everybody scolds me for letting the Council die, newsreports mention people are preparing for wars and everybody hates everybody. However, the paragon alternative has my Shepard patted on the back and he's a [zaeed]big goddamn hero[/zaeed].

Now with Mass Effect 2, I thought they would've learned from their lesson as they at least made Renegades less of an **** as before. This was until I reached the ending where the game pats the person who blew up the Collector Base on the back, everybody is cheering how amazing you are and you did the right choice (even though they advocated keeping the base). You do the Renegade alternative, everybody says you did a big mistake / you're stupid and that you've only added more problems (this is also coming from the people who told you to keep the base). This foreshadows once again that Renegades will probably be punished with a "bad ending" alternative.

When a game gives you a choice between everything-going-right or everything-going-wrong, what's the point of having a choice? Both sides should have screw ups, both sides should have something go wrong. When I'm on my Paragon and I decide to tell Zaeed I'm not giving a damn about his loyalty and that I prefer my morals over him - I shouldn't be able to point a gun at his head and gain his loyalty.

Renegades do sacrifices for the mission, a Paragon shouldn't be able to avoid those sacrifices and yield the exact same results nor should there be a "good" or "bad" path. The game should remain neutral with it's decisions.

EDIT: Hope that made sense too.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Alienmorph]

As alredy said in some other topics, in my opinion the Paragon path should allow to get a chance to easier achieve an happy ending, but like with the ending of ME2 the strategy you choose in the last part of the game should be decisive at the same way of your moral choices... I mean... even being always Paragon and with the loyalty of almost the whole crew, the first time I did the Suicide Mission I've lost 5 teammates 'cause I did the wrong choices. I expect the same for ME3, but on planetary scale.Also would be a lot interesting that your past decision on teammates too has hudge influences but not authomatically in good way: for exampleif a teammated got indoctrinated and turned against us (something says to me that this is a quite possible twist) you shouldn't  necessary be able to save him, but bein Paragon at least could give you a chance to gain for him\\her a last-minute redemption, like with Saren in ME1.

Modifié par Alienmorph, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:39 .

[ReiSilver]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I do understand how a dead person cannot reappear, how that shouldn't mean there should never be a reference to it. When I'm playing through my Renegade who killed the Rachni Queen, there's nothing to reference "Oh hey, you did that choice." just like if I played the Default ME2 playthrough. The default kills off all future plot potential, meaning why should a Renegade player even do that decision if there's no plot potential for it in the future?

Simple fix, add plot designed for somebody who did that choice anyways. The default ME2 can have no reference to it at all, just play along like if it never happened and the Renegade should have at least more than say... nothing. Have a few Krogan praising Shepard's name, have a radio broadcast mention how ExoGeni is out of buisness because of the Rachni thing (the Rachni are kept secret if spared, if killed they wouldn't need to keep it secret).

It's simple, it's small but still makes the player feel like they impacted something instead of having done nothing. An email would've sufficed.

Also the whole "bad ending" feel is from how everything a Renegade does, there's a lot of foreshadowing that it's the wrong decision and the player should feel bad.

Note: The following examples are assuming you follow the "pure" Renegade / Paragon path, something I'd never advocate but just using for my example as it's mostly turned into pure paragon vs pure renegade.

I'll take the two big decisions for example, pretend you're playing a pure Renegade and you kill the Council - they call you a ruthless opportunist that allowed humanity to rule with an iron fist while there's dark music in the backround. If you're a paragon, heroic music and bright lights are shined from the backround and everybody praises how amazing you are.

I felt "Meh, that's pretty good" until I imported into Mass Effect 2 where everybody scolds me for letting the Council die, newsreports mention people are preparing for wars and everybody hates everybody. However, the paragon alternative has my Shepard patted on the back and he's a [zaeed]big goddamn hero[/zaeed].

Now with Mass Effect 2, I thought they would've learned from their lesson as they at least made Renegades less of an **** as before. This was until I reached the ending where the game pats the person who blew up the Collector Base on the back, everybody is cheering how amazing you are and you did the right choice (even though they advocated keeping the base). You do the Renegade alternative, everybody says you did a big mistake / you're stupid and that you've only added more problems (this is also coming from the people who told you to keep the base). This foreshadows once again that Renegades will probably be punished with a "bad ending" alternative.

When a game gives you a choice between everything-going-right or everything-going-wrong, what's the point of having a choice? Both sides should have screw ups, both sides should have something go wrong. When I'm on my Paragon and I decide to tell Zaeed I'm not giving a damn about his loyalty and that I prefer my morals over him - I shouldn't be able to point a gun at his head and gain his loyalty.

Renegades do sacrifices for the mission, a Paragon shouldn't be able to avoid those sacrifices and yield the exact same results nor should there be a "good" or "bad" path. The game should remain neutral with it's decisions.

EDIT: Hope that made sense too.

Addressing the council and collector base ending, this is exactly what I meant when I said these decisions are setting up for renegade=human dominance, paragon=try and save all species. The reason paragons get praised in these situations is because they acted selflessly, took a risk and managed to pull it off, alien characters have no reason to be miffed with you. Where as renegade didn't take a risk with the council and put their own newcomer-species in the seats of power* so you get dark empire type music and praise from Udina, of course some aliens would accept it was too risky to save the council but a lot of them are rightfully ticked off either for not having council seats or because humans have never had a council seat so they're not going to run as smooth as the previous council until they get some experience. With the collector base you've giving a base that turns people into milkshakes to a group that has a history of unethical scientific experiments and wants human dominance, Morinth will say it's a good idea while others express trepidation, though they also express trepidation in the paragon ending it's more a trusting Shepard to find a way vs trusting cerberus.
Both these outcomes point to giving humans the advantage over other species, while the other outcomes point to keeping a balance of power. I think this is what the writers were going for, they expect the players to want that as an option much like the 'evil' ending in Knights of the old Republic ending with the player character taking power for themselves while dark yet impressive music plays.

*a lot of people have expressed that they would want to sacrifice the council but bring on a new council of humans-turians-asari-salarians, similarly people have said they wanted to save the base for anyone but cerberus. What this says to me is that the writers are going for the dichotomy I pointed out above, they're not giving you the option to be ruthless and not pro-human dominance at the same time, though this is what a lot of people want.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

With regards to the Rachni having no reference in ME2 if you either 'killed' them in ME2 or are playing a default Shep in ME2. I agree with Dave to some extent in that it probably should've been mentioned if not just for the default/newbies. I think PS3 people will get to see this as one of the 'choices' they can be faced with in the comic, so maybe after it's 'initially exclusive' release perhaps it will come over to the PC/360 so people with default Shep's that weren't in the mood to go out and buy/play ME can go alter that decision.



All that said, with regards to people who did kill Rachni off, if the idea that I know some of us have about Shep starting off in ME3 on trial. I think it is obvious that no matter which council you picked, the topic of you 'killing off a species' will most likely get mentioned as one of your 'crimes'. Despite this they might also still turn on Paragon's for 'allowing that species' to remain alive.



I understand how Paragons get more rewards for doing stuff, although it was really nice to see a paragon choice in ME2 backfire pretty much about 5-10 minutes after doing it in the form of the Eclipse Asari member who had killed the Volus. I know it's only a small thing and I know some 'paragons' who have taken the renegade interupt but it is still a renegade choice to kill her rather than letting her go believing her to be as 'innocent' as she claimed.



I do think balance would have to be maintained though and whilst would be nice to see a few more paragon choices backfire, some renegade ones have to as well. Despite being more of a fan of my Renegade playthroughs I have no issues with some of my choices coming back to haunt me no matter which shepard it is. Case sort of mentioned above with the Rachni, even in ME we were slated no matter which choice we made thus keeping the age old saying of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.' true in the verse even in the future.

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 23 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Why is "Idealism" so strictly associated with "Paragon"?



I, for one, think that TIM is the most idealistic character in the game.



And paragon Shepards are often nothing more than egotistical, self-righteous hypocrites, cynically pretending to be good (and successfully lying to themselves that they aren't like that at all!).

[Nimrodell]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I think Godwood's opinion is justified, though. We've only seen Paragons receive pat on the backs and encouraged for doing the things they do, they also happen to receive more content in Mass Effect 2 as a bonus. Everything a Renegade does is scolded at, foreshadowed to be stupid and loses out on content.

Discussions on the forums always seem to sway in favor of Paragons that those of us who consider ourselves more Renegade in our approach of the game are left bitter and angry, "we" are doing the hard decisions to complete the mission but the Paragon isn't doing anything and gets the same results.

A Paragon can't expect everything to go right at all times, they take far too many risks but all of them pay off in the end with barely any consequences. The ONE time I can think of a Paragon getting a slap on the wrist and it's relatively minor is the Elnora portion, though you can't even kill her if you missed the 1 second prompt.

It creates a sense of resentment, we (as in people who do Renegade choices) feel like if we're being cast aside as Bioware's second thoughts. Why bother playing Renegade in Mass Effect 1 if the Mass Effect Default only has maybe one or two differences than what a Renegade playthrough would look like? Why bother killing whats-his-face if it means I lose out on extra dialogue?

This isn't the first we've heard of the happily-ever-after Paragon ending, it certainly won't be the last but we've grown rather tired of the rose colored glasses viewpoint the Paragon has. Why even offer choice if one leads to a bad ending and the other leads to a good ending? Both sides should have their ups and downs.

Edit:  I hope that made sense, I was busy playing Dragon Age and typing out a word every 20 seconds.

To be honest, Dave, I've played renegon pathway during my fifth or sixth playthrough ME1 and ME2, wasn't able to do 100% renegade because many times renegade *poke me in the eye* options were plainly stupid, misleading,  violence with no good reason for it. Default choosing renegade options is meaningles unless one likes violence and rudeness for the sake of it... With that renegade one can just ask - why would renegade go for anyone's dominance or saving the galaxy by risking his/hers neck constantly? So I think that people have problem with defining renegade because BioWare tricked them or forums about predictability of choices... I've done many things as renegade and finished with the same outcome as paragon would. My renegon is cinic, selfish, enraged for being abandoned, betrayed even, but she never kills with no good reason and plays as true politician, covering her ars and still knowing that friends are friends. But for smart, calculated renegade, player needs couple of playthroughs to see that *poke me in the eye* usually is not the way, unless he/she wants chaotic brute that has no good reason to go for saving the galaxy in the 1st place. And tbh, as paragon I always use renegade interrupts on Garrus, Miranda's or Mordin's missions because I am a good guy/girl, but I'm not stupid... I have no problem with shooting that mech in the head or setting on fire that stupid Weyrlock speaker... it's a korigan, ofc he will attack me no matter what I say and Wrex Urdnot is my friend lol.

Ah my renegon had both intimidate and charm options with Tali and Legion... and it was fun seeing my orange scarred Shepard being that calculated... it was nice. So no, renegade's playthrough is not poorer than paragons, renegade can achieve the same content by being renegade, but a smart, patient one and knowing when to jump on the first ball and when to wait for intimidation option through default paragon upper side of the dialogue circle.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave of Canada wrote...

On the other side of the spectrum, I want my Renegade to be the ultimate hero in terms of stopping the Reapers. A lot less damage but with a more fragile universe in the end.

I noticed nobody's really focused on this aspect, but I feel it deserves a nod of its own.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 23 novembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Why is "Idealism" so strictly associated with "Paragon"?

I, for one, think that TIM is the most idealistic character in the game.

And paragon Shepards are often nothing more than egotistical, self-righteous hypocrites, cynically pretending to be good (and successfully lying to themselves that they aren't like that at all!).

Agreed. Idealism is not bad. Everyone has ideals. My beef with paragons is that they often act against the best interests of galactic society because of a misguided sense of morality. Renegades are characterized by consequentialism and rightly so. The ends are the only thing that should be considered in justifying means. That is how I decide what is moral and what is not.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 23 novembre 2010 - 03:14 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

On the other side of the spectrum, I want my Renegade to be the ultimate hero in terms of stopping the Reapers. A lot less damage but with a more fragile universe in the end.

I noticed nobody's really focused on this aspect, but I feel it deserves a nod of its own.

I agree. Sadly, I foresee the paragon ending to be rainbows and butterflies while the renegade ending to result in far more damage and either a human hegemony or politically unstable galaxy afterward.

[Kronner]

Why are Paragons naive? Not killing Racchni or the heretics is a tactical decision.

The Council save or let die decision had very little impact in ME2.

The only major Paragon decision that is kinda naive is destroying the Collectors' Base.

Other than these few "major" decisions, the difference between Paragon and Renegade is just semantics. I'd bet there will be a happy end for all, maybe with a few small differences.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 novembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[-Skorpious-]

Kronner wrote...

Why are Paragons naive? Not killing Racchni or the heretics is a tactical decision.

The Council save or let die decision had very little impact in ME2.

The only major Paragon decision that is kinda naive is destroying the Collectors' Base.

Other than these few "major" decisions, the difference between Paragon and Renegade is just semantics. I'd bet there will be a happy end for all, maybe with a few small differences.

I disagree. The Collector base, for all intents and purposes, could be be a hidden WMD for all Shepard knows - keeping/destroying the base is equally as risky for both paragons and renegades. I rather like the following analogy myself when deciding the fate of the Collector Base -

Giving a loaded gun to a child, even if someone has used agressive force to break into your home, is both risky and dangerous for everyone involved.

Claiming that only the paragons take a risk when destroying the base (as opposed to saving it) is a lie. In ME3 saving the base may have undesired consequences for renegades, so until ME3 is out, both paragons and renegades are potential idiots.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 23 novembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[Kronner]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I disagree. The Collector base, for all intents and purposes, could be be a hidden WMD for all Shepard knows - keeping/destroying the base is equally as risky for both paragons and renegades. I rather like the following analogy myself when deciding the fate of the Collector Base -

Giving a loaded gun to a child, even if someone has used agressive force to break into your home, is both risky and dangerous for everyone involved.

Claiming that only the paragons take a risk when destroying the base (as opposed to saving it) is a lie. In ME3 saving the base may have undesired consequences for renegades, so until ME3 is out, both paragons and renegades are potential idiots.

But, when you think about it, destroying the base is pretty much the same as destroying (killing) racchni.
You are losing a potential ally/information OR you end a potential threat.
Yet, destroying racchni in ME1 it is a Renegade decision, destroying the base in ME2 is Paragon decision. Why? What's the difference?

I usually destroy the base, but I do realize that it may not be the best tactical decision, I just do not trust TIM at all, and I have a bad feeling about him, which is why I destroy it.
But in the end, it is just a thing that can be used to get new technology and stuff, and I would not be surprised if there are severe consequences in ME3.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 novembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[mosor]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Why are Paragons naive? Not killing Racchni or the heretics is a tactical decision.

The Council save or let die decision had very little impact in ME2.

The only major Paragon decision that is kinda naive is destroying the Collectors' Base.

Other than these few "major" decisions, the difference between Paragon and Renegade is just semantics. I'd bet there will be a happy end for all, maybe with a few small differences.

I disagree. The Collector base, for all intents and purposes, could be be a hidden WMD for all Shepard knows - keeping/destroying the base is equally as risky for both paragons and renegades. I rather like the following analogy myself when deciding the fate of the Collector Base -

Giving a loaded gun to a child, even if someone has used agressive force to break into your home, is both risky and dangerous for everyone involved.

Claiming that only the paragons take a risk when destroying the base (as opposed to saving it) is a lie. In ME3 saving the base may have undesired consequences for renegades, so until ME3 is out, both paragons and renegades are potential idiots.

@Konner
Saving the Rachni isn't usually a tactical decision because the grand reaper plan isn't apparent at that point in the game (maybe if you do Noveria last, but even then you don't have all the details). It all biols down to if you buy the rachni queen's story that she'll be good this time or not.

The geth decision I really don't see as particuarly renegade or paragon, despite the points awarded.

As for other paragon decisions, some are pretty damn naive. You can have the biggest rotten scoundrel in the universe and Paragon Shepard will trust that letting him or go is for the best and things will work out for the best.

@Skorpious

I really don't understand your child example. You're saying it's better for a child defend himself against a machine gun weilding pyscho killer,certain to come, with a sling shot rather than that child to have a gun?  Maybe if there were adults around to protect him it might be better, but there are none.

What about all the intel in the base? You got some psycho after you, and you have an opportunity know know more about that psycho. What makes him tick, maybe his plans, maybe his weaknesses? You're turning your back on all that because you believe a child's place is sitting alone in the dark with a slingshot?  Children have to grow up, and in troubled times, and war zones, they have to grow up fast or die.

[Kronner]

mosor wrote...

@Konner
Saving the Rachni isn't usually a tactical decision because the grand reaper plan isn't apparent at that point in the game (maybe if you do Noveria last, but even then you don't have all the details). It all biols down to if you buy the rachni queen's story that she'll be good this time or not.

The geth decision I really don't see as particuarly renegade or paragon, despite the points awarded.

As for other paragon decisions, some are pretty damn naive. You can have the biggest rotten scoundrel in the universe and Paragon Shepard will trust that letting him or go is for the best and things will work out for the best.

I remember my Shepard saying "she could be a powerful ally". Also, the russian guy that sits in the lab says that "racchni are actually good" (not exact wording, but something like that). I also knew about the Reapers indoctrination, so I decided to take the chance and let her go.

Yeah, the geth decision should be neither paragon nor renegade.

The other Paragon decisions are very minor, letting some Warlord (ie Vido) go or similar stuff is not integral to the plot at all.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 novembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[Rekkampum]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I think Godwood's opinion is justified, though. We've only seen Paragons receive pat on the backs and encouraged for doing the things they do, they also happen to receive more content in Mass Effect 2 as a bonus. Everything a Renegade does is scolded at, foreshadowed to be stupid and loses out on content.

Discussions on the forums always seem to sway in favor of Paragons that those of us who consider ourselves more Renegade in our approach of the game are left bitter and angry, "we" are doing the hard decisions to complete the mission but the Paragon isn't doing anything and gets the same results.

A Paragon can't expect everything to go right at all times, they take far too many risks but all of them pay off in the end with barely any consequences. The ONE time I can think of a Paragon getting a slap on the wrist and it's relatively minor is the Elnora portion, though you can't even kill her if you missed the 1 second prompt.

It creates a sense of resentment, we (as in people who do Renegade choices) feel like if we're being cast aside as Bioware's second thoughts. Why bother playing Renegade in Mass Effect 1 if the Mass Effect Default only has maybe one or two differences than what a Renegade playthrough would look like? Why bother killing whats-his-face if it means I lose out on extra dialogue?

This isn't the first we've heard of the happily-ever-after Paragon ending, it certainly won't be the last but we've grown rather tired of the rose colored glasses viewpoint the Paragon has. Why even offer choice if one leads to a bad ending and the other leads to a good ending? Both sides should have their ups and downs.

Edit:  I hope that made sense, I was busy playing Dragon Age and typing out a word every 20 seconds.

I wouldn't say that. Drew Karpyshyn's been writing novels following a Renegade perspective, so you guys get alot more attention than the Paragons do. The rest is just fireworks.

The Paragon choice for Overlord didn't exactly have a happy ending.

Modifié par Rekkampum, 23 novembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[-Skorpious-]

mosor wrote...

@Skorpious

I really don't understand your child example. You're saying it's better for a child defend himself against a machine gun weilding pyscho killer,certain to come, with a sling shot rather than that child to have a gun?  Maybe if there were adults around to protect him it might be better, but there are none.

What about all the intel in the base? You got some psycho after you, and you have an opportunity know know more about that psycho. What makes him tick, maybe his plans, maybe his weaknesses? You're turning your back on all that because you believe a child's place is sitting alone in the dark with a slingshot?  Children have to grow up, and in troubled times, and war zones, they have to grow up fast or die.

Ok, I'll admit I was clutching at straws with that analogy (a more accurate example would have been a bomb), but it doesn't change the fact the saving the base is just as risky as destroying it. Yes, you can potentially lose helpful technology, but with the exception of EDI, any organic involvement with the reapers ends in disaster for those involved. What if the base ends up indoctrinating all the Cerberus personal investigating the base? Ok, no problem, a few hundred lives is of little value compared to any scientific advances the base may contain; but what if the indoctrinated had the strength and technology of RETRIBUTION SPOILER the Greyson-reaper hybrid? One Greyson was already a significant threat, so imagine 100 of them.

It's just like you said with the rachni - saving them may end up hurting the galaxy more than helping it. Whose to say the same can't be said with the Collector base? If the scenario I described above happened, would destroying the base have been a mistake for a paragon Shepard considering the potential danger of keeping it represents?

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 23 novembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[Elite Midget]

Kinda hard to pat a Renegade in the back when those they help could care less about Shepard. That and Renegades tend to kill things a lot. Such as the Rachnii, the Council, keeping the Genophage, giving a WMD producing base to Cerberus, killing the Colonist on Zhu's Hope, and generally being someone that most people don't want to mess with. Thus they don't bother popping up again and saying "Awesome job, Shepard! Since you let our Colony die we've been thriving! /sarcasm".

[etonesmith1]

Dave of Canada wrote...

It creates a sense of resentment, we (as in people who do Renegade choices) feel like if we're being cast aside as Bioware's second thoughts. Why bother playing Renegade in Mass Effect 1 if the Mass Effect Default only has maybe one or two differences than what a Renegade playthrough would look like? Why bother killing whats-his-face if it means I lose out on extra dialogue?

its hard to have dialogue with some one you killed

[Rekkampum]

The Genophage research was compiled from Maelon trying to develop a cure, so it's not really "bad" apart from the measures involved.



Also, only one of my Renegade characters killed the Rachni queen.

[Elite Midget]

Those are Renegade options. It's easier to compare a Renegade with Renegade Options since a true Renegade picks all of the Renegade Options anyway.

[Ieldra]

Dave of Canada wrote...
I'd want my Paragon to see the devastation he caused by being too idealistic, I want to see planets burn and entire people get indoctrinated. Though he'd win and the galaxy would be at peace (with everybody praising Shepard), I'd like to know that the galaxy suffered for my choices.

On the other side of the spectrum, I want my Renegade to be the ultimate hero in terms of stopping the Reapers. A lot less damage but with a more fragile universe in the end.

Definitely this. Good and bad elements to both paths.

[Count Viceroy]

etonesmith1 wrote...

its hard to have dialogue with some one you killed

This is not a valid argument, yet it is always brought up in paragon's defense. You've all become entitled to extra content because bioware have spoonfed it to you so far.

You can still create content for the renegade options that are just as valid and interesting as the paragon ones, even if the person, as you point out is dead. It could be a news story, it  could be a person who was there but not one of the people faced with renegade shepads wrath, hell it could even be a lousy email. Deleting them from the game and just rolling with it like it never happened it not fair at all.

As it stands, just deleting the content and moving on basically means that the renegade decision you made had zero ramifications what so ever, if that's the case then what's the point? Press blue to get extra content, or press red if you want less. Just lazy.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 23 novembre 2010 - 08:59 .

[Xilizhra]

As a pure Paragon, I can think of no situation in which I haven't considered ends. I simply desire the ends of galactic harmony over that of human dominance.