228 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

RiouHotaru wrote...
I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE.

My Shepard has a full renegade bar and has done no such things to innocents.

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

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 problem is this though; that doesn't work. You can be an otherwise full paragon and save the base, you can be an otherwise full paragon and destroy the base, you can be an otherwise full renegade and save the base and you can be an otherwise full renegade and destroy the base.

All of these should reward the player in some capacity. I'm a paragade if anything with a full paragon bar, a half full renegade bar, I have saved the council, saved the rachni, kept the genophage cure, put an autistic boy back into a creepy machine, will seek a resolution to the geth-quarian conflict (if able), placed Anderson on the throne (for what good that's worth) and yet I keep the base.

The problem is this as well; being a renegade doesn't (or rather; shouldn't) automatically shoe-horn you into being a pro humanist Cerberus sympathiser. What it should mean is that a renegade doesn't get swayed (or tries not to get swayed) by the moral high ground. If the choice is between saving a cute puppy or saving a cute kitten, the renegade will save the drowning boy.... He wont try to save the cute puppy, the cute kitten and save the drowning boy. I'm exaggerating somewhat of course, but while a renegade does get the best lines in the game, the Renegade isn't going to just kowtow to people who he feels is wasting his time.

Exactly. I've made it a point in some of my playthroughs to make end-game decisions against my prevailing alignment. Even a Paragon would find keeping the base worth considering, and even a Renegade might see that it could be politically advantageous to save the Council (and won't he rue that decision come ME2). At the core of the Renegade concept lies putting cold reason before emotion-driven morality. If there is no conflict, all the better - then the Renegade can be compassionate and lose nothing. If there is, he'll do what's necessary, but nobody says he has to be happy about that necessity. Shepard's callous Renegade lines miss the point. Instead of saying "How about goodbye", I want the option to say "(sigh) Why must it always come to this?".
Anyway, that's how a Renegade can be badass *and* heroic. Some people might want to play a different version. That's OK, too, but it's not "the" Renegade.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 novembre 2010 - 09:06 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

And what if "galactic harmony" is incompatible with survival? I get the impression quite a few Paragons would rather ignore such a contradiction should it exist and pretend to live in a delusional reality...

Or that we believe that both are possible.  It may be difficult to achieve, sure, and may require that we have to work harder for it, but there's nothing saying that the best of both worlds is outside of our reach.

[PauseforEffect]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE, and want the same things the Paragons get? Excuse me? Don't expect pats on the back and praise for acting like a snob.

*stands to applaud*
Well written, I get the impression some renegades want a paragon ending while looking cool doing it. Yes, there are decisions actual soldiers make that would match a renegade's, and yes, not all paragon options will seem realistic. But both paragon and renegade get the job done with different outcomes.
An issue I have with renegade players wanting to be badass and have positive outcomes is that I don't believe you can make an actual hard choice if there was nothing to suffer from it. I know a soldier who under orders had to shoot a 7 yr old child in the name of duty and the greater good. If people want to play a tough, cynical side, then they had better be prepared to expect the worse for a cynic knows only the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[Rekkampum]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

PrimalEden wrote...

There are moments in ME2 where it is necessary to take renegade actions. Several instances like Archangel's recruitment where sabotaging stacked odds made sense, Tuchanka, Miranda's loyalty mission, Interrogating Kelham, need I say more?
The paragon options are not naive. Shepard would never make it as a soldier if one wanted to be an idealist. The definitions of a paragon/renegade were made clear and if one wanted to be violent more often, fine, nothing wrong with that.
But backstabbing a fellow teammate like Samara for a serial killer? I can understand how someone's just trying to save their own hide, but that's pure cowardice to me.
Sometimes paragons seem to have more backbone than the renegades

Having a Renegade kill Samara over Morinth makes sense. Samara is bound by her Justicar Code to kill those who break her code, which it is highly likely that Renegade Shepard would be doing on a daily basis. As a result, Samara's code would demand her to kill Shepard once the mission is over. Likewise, Samara also represents a threat to the crew given some of the "loose" morals of the crew like Thane, Garrus, and Jack after the mission is complete.

Morinth, on the other hand, is an Ardat Yakshi and as such has a much looser spectrum of moral ethics, Likewise, the only interest she has in harming Shepard is by melding with him and the only way you are even going to get the option is if she lacks the power to dominate Shepard from the start. She might have an interest in harming some of the crew given the fact that some of them are definitely fascinating and unique individuals, but as she mentions in the game "They aren't you." so it's likely she'll just avoid them as you are the true prey that she is interested in.

Thus, as a Renegade, I am forced to choose between two people who want to kill Shepard: one of which will attempt to do it with her biotics and the other by sleeping Shepard. Given the fact that the Renegade speech options for Shepard hint at an arrogance that she cannot touch Shepard as he will not sleep with her, it makes logical sense as to why ReneShep would choose Morinth over Samara.

EDIT: I also couldn't help but notice your choice of words towards Morinth as being a serial killer. While I am by no means going to dispute this, Samara is definitely not any "higher" of an individual so to speak. She eliminates people who break a code that is known only to a select few known as Justicars without question and regardless of the consequences of her decisions, for example when she attempted to kill Nihlus after he killed an unarmed civilian, despite his legal right to do so. Samara is the Mass Effect equivalent of Light from Deathnote, mercilessly slaughtering people that break a draconian moral code that for all intents and purposes is her own without question. Criminal justice systems based upon such ideals today are generally not seen in a positive light by humanitarian groups.

Nice comparison, but Light follows his own subjective moral code, and tries to be god or Kira at the same time later on and blatantly tries to enforce his laws across the entire world. Samara follows a set list of codes - as you noted - that she memorized and has never compromised since she took on the role of Justicar. To note, the Justicar's morals are based in significant part on preexisting laws and norms of Asari society, which she must take a vow to follow. Samara also hasn't manipulated people to achieve her duties, and sutras of the Asari are common knowledge, as lots of Asari enter training - only a select few manage to survive it however.

While I agree - and even Samara would agree, and has - that their laws are especially harsh amd that she's no less than fanatical, they certainly aren't equivalent to the vision of Light/Kira. This is not a good comparison.

Actually, Morinth will offer you the chance to meld with her later on whenever you talk with her about it, promising Shepard that he can survive because of his ability to survive the beacon on Eden Prime, etc.. Guess what happens when you take her up on the offer?

CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE

Modifié par Rekkampum, 26 novembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[Count Viceroy]

GodWood wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE.

My Shepard has a full renegade bar and has done no such things to innocents.

That.

[Ieldra]

PrimalEden wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE, and want the same things the Paragons get? Excuse me? Don't expect pats on the back and praise for acting like a snob.

*stands to applaud*
Well written, I get the impression some renegades want a paragon ending while looking cool doing it. Yes, there are decisions actual soldiers make that would match a renegade's, and yes, not all paragon options will seem realistic. But both paragon and renegade get the job done with different outcomes.
An issue I have with renegade players wanting to be badass and have positive outcomes is that I don't believe you can make an actual hard choice if there was nothing to suffer from it. I know a soldier who under orders had to shoot a 7 yr old child in the name of duty and the greater good. If people want to play a tough, cynical side, then they had better be prepared to expect the worse for a cynic knows only the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The issue is not about Renegade wanting to pay no price for their decisions. I killed someone who needn't have died, I won't meet him later, and I lose content, that's OK. I let the Council die, aliens don't like me, very much what I expect. No problem. The issue is with Paragons paying *no* price for their gambling with people's lives and taking risks in trusting people. Not ever.

The intention behind the P/R system was to make a difference in style in achieving your objectives, not to tell a morality tale that Paragons are better. Yet, that is what things look like. Play Paragon, and the improbable becomes commonplace, the universe bends to your will to accomodate your decisions and cancel out all bad side effects that might have been incurred by misplaced trust and sentimentality. While Renegades get the jobs done, but always pay the price for their expecting the worst from people, and their decisions are never explicitly vindicated. 
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 novembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[GodWood]

DarkSeraphym wrote...
Samara is the Mass Effect equivalent of Light from Deathnote, mercilessly slaughtering people that break a draconian moral code that for all intents and purposes is her own without question. Criminal justice systems based upon such ideals today are generally not seen in a positive light by humanitarian groups.

You speak as if Light was the bad guy.
He was the greatest leader the world had ever had but then he got taken down by that bastard N.

Modifié par GodWood, 26 novembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

PrimalEden wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I find this argument somewhat tedious. Renegades beat up, shoot, intimidate, threaten, and otherwise act like jerkwads towards EVERYONE, and want the same things the Paragons get? Excuse me? Don't expect pats on the back and praise for acting like a snob.

*stands to applaud*
Well written, I get the impression some renegades want a paragon ending while looking cool doing it. Yes, there are decisions actual soldiers make that would match a renegade's, and yes, not all paragon options will seem realistic. But both paragon and renegade get the job done with different outcomes.
An issue I have with renegade players wanting to be badass and have positive outcomes is that I don't believe you can make an actual hard choice if there was nothing to suffer from it. I know a soldier who under orders had to shoot a 7 yr old child in the name of duty and the greater good. If people want to play a tough, cynical side, then they had better be prepared to expect the worse for a cynic knows only the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The issue is not about Renegade wanting to pay no price for their decisions. I killed someone who needn't have died, I won't meet him later, and I lose content, that's OK. I let the Council die, aliens don't like me, very much what I expect. No problem. The issue is with Paragons paying *no* price for their gambling with people's lives and taking risks in trusting people. Not ever.

The intention behind the P/R system was to make a difference in style in achieving your objectives, not to tell a morality tale that Paragons are better. Yet, that is what things look like. Play Paragon, and the improbable becomes commonplace, the universe bends to your will to accomodate your decisions and cancel out all bad side effects that might have been incurred by misplaced trust and sentimentality. While Renegades get the jobs done, but always pay the price for their expecting the worst from people, and their decisions are never explicitly vindicated. 
 

Why should Paragons have to pay a price?  Why should they be made to feel as bad, or worse, than Renegades?  This isn't Dragon Age where the world is a panoramic of seamlessly blending shades of gray.  There are some moral complexities, but it isn't nearly as pronounced as DA, which is one thing I didn't like about it.  Too much moral complexity is just as bad as too little.

Also, since you claim that the game bends to accomodate, give me examples.  I want specific examples of where a Paragon makes a seemingly foolish choice and gets away scott-free in ME2.  Not the original, because those aren't terribly relevant right now.  But I seriously want a concrete list.

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Why should Paragons have to pay a price?  Why should they be made to feel as bad, or worse, than Renegades? 

To give them a feel of responsibility for the choices they make. To convert the Paragon/Renegade mechanic into a game system, from the onanistic pleasure button it is now.

[RiouHotaru]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Why should Paragons have to pay a price?  Why should they be made to feel as bad, or worse, than Renegades? 

To give them a feel of responsibility for the choices they make. To convert the Paragon/Renegade mechanic into a game system, from the onanistic pleasure button it is now.

Then I think we have two different defintions of 'game system'.  And again, responsibility for what?  Taking the longer, usually more difficult path to get a better result than the quick and dirty road?

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Why should Paragons have to pay a price?  Why should they be made to feel as bad, or worse, than Renegades? 

To give them a feel of responsibility for the choices they make. To convert the Paragon/Renegade mechanic into a game system, from the onanistic pleasure button it is now.

Then I think we have two different defintions of 'game system'.  And again, responsibility for what?  Taking the longer, usually more difficult path to get a better result than the quick and dirty road?

Yes. Because taking the longer and more difficult path must occasionally bite you in the arse. Which is exactly what BioWare fails to depict.

And it is also argued that while BioWare rewards the paragon players with optional content, the renegades get nothing, except the cool-crap stuff like punching reporters in front of a crowd (... which is also done more often by the so called "paragades", it seems...).

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 26 novembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

How have paragons been forced to make a longer, more difficult path with the vast majority of their choices? Especially the big choices, or the end-mission choices?



About the only case I can think of is deciding how to get to the hot labs on Noveria, and you'll miss both items, experience, no renegade points, and future content if you simply fight your way through security.

[RiouHotaru]

Except that if you KILL NPCs, then can't come back, thus denying you content. That's the consequence of your choice. If a Paragon lets them live and gets content, it's not denying you anything you couldn't get otherwise. You just have to, oh I don't know, let them live?



And no, it doesn't have to bite you in the ass. Ever heard of "Nothing done right is ever done easy?" Not to imply that Paragons are right and Renegades are wrong, but if you're going to take the route that allows for a more favorable outcome and it's harder because of that, making it bite you in the ass is pointless, at least in a video game. All you do is encourage the players to choose quick and dirty because it stings less than taking a more difficult approach to try and solve a problem more favorably and then punishing you for it.

[RiouHotaru]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How have paragons been forced to make a longer, more difficult path with the vast majority of their choices? Especially the big choices, or the end-mission choices?

About the only case I can think of is deciding how to get to the hot labs on Noveria, and you'll miss both items, experience, no renegade points, and future content if you simply fight your way through security.

Feros colonists, using grenades vs. just shooting them.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 26 novembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Except that if you KILL NPCs, then can't come back, thus denying you content. That's the consequence of your choice. If a Paragon lets them live and gets content, it's not denying you anything you couldn't get otherwise. You just have to, oh I don't know, let them live?

This is not the most hypocritical statement you get from the paragons (and not one I necessarily disagree with -- I was actually happy that my renegade style spared me a lot of "deja vu / galaxy is a small village" effect in ME2). But it seems it's the most often used hypocritical statement.

It's hypocritical, because so long as there ain't actual biting in the arse for anything on either side of the spectrum, it would be cute to provide all players with equal amount of content. It's just has to be different for the renegades.

As I said, though, it would be just cute, and I don't hold a grudge because the Galaxy feels emptier for me as a result of my "bad" choices... But I do think that the Rachni queen must come at you in ME3 and chew up half of your squadmates alive in front of you, including the LI, if you've taken the moronic choice of letting the necrobug loose in ME1.

RiouHotaru wrote...
And no, it doesn't have to bite you in the ass. Ever heard of "Nothing done right is ever done easy?" Not to imply that Paragons are right and Renegades are wrong,

I also heard that "No good deed goes unpunished". This must equally apply to both paragons and renegades.

RiouHotaru wrote...
but if you're going to take the route that allows for a more favorable outcome and it's harder because of that, making it bite you in the ass is pointless, at least in a video game.

 
In ME1 it was actually more tiresome to be a renegade - more shooting needed to be done. ME2 fixed it (Oh, god, I can't believe I'm saying it!) with the renegade interrupts (but not enough).

But it's irrelevant, since we are talking the plot/story here, not the shooter gameplay, and I don't know how the paragon path is any longer or harder -- because of no biting in the arse, no strings attached, no price to be payed, by the paragons.

RiouHotaru wrote...
All you do is encourage the players to choose quick and dirty because it stings less than taking a more difficult approach to try and solve a problem more favorably and then punishing you for it.

Yes, of course. Rutless efficiency vs. so called "moral compass"... But I don't think that anything can force a true paragon to do what needs to be done, instead of doing what their mommy told them was socially acceptable. So when it does indeed pay off by not punishing you (unlike in some other cases), you'll go just ecstatic, and come here and have a kumbaya with your fellow paragons, and be posting all over the forums: "see Zulu you heartless diсk i was right and my moral compass payed off LOL! go kill yourself!" But for that you need to be bitten in the arse, real badly, once in a while. For the most moronic choices, at least.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 26 novembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Why should Paragons have to pay a price?  Why should they be made to feel as bad, or worse, than Renegades? 

To give them a feel of responsibility for the choices they make. To convert the Paragon/Renegade mechanic into a game system, from the onanistic pleasure button it is now.

Then I think we have two different defintions of 'game system'.  And again, responsibility for what?  Taking the longer, usually more difficult path to get a better result than the quick and dirty road?

Except that the Paragon solutions are *not* any harder. They're just as easy as the Renegade choices, yet systematically get more likeable results.

You ask why Paragons should occasionally pay a price for misplaced trust and sentimentality? Here's why: because an even remotely believable universe is like that. There may be a perfect solution where everyone lives *and* you achieve your objective here and there, but most solutions aren't like that. If a pattern of perfect solutions appears, the universe becomes artificial and less believable.

Playing Paragon in ME, that's comparable to having the guarantee everyone survives the suicide mission. You can have your cake and eat it. Free lunch for everyone.

Examples? Here are some:
*you let the Rachni queen live in ME1, and *of course* she's friendly in ME2.
*you let Balak go in ME1, and *of course* we never hear from him again as having commited any more crimes in ME2.
*you save the Council in ME1, and of course the remaining fleet is still strong enough to defeat Sovereign with Shepard's help (OK, that was unavoidable given the plot structure, but it still adds to the pattern).
*you let Fist go in ME1, and of course he won't get in your way again.
*you give Samesh Bhatia the body of his wife, and of course there are absolutely no negative consequences for the research efforts.
*You let Dr.Wayne live in ME1, and of course he will completely reform and act as a witness against Cerberus instead of continuing his research.


Every one of these, taken separately, poses no problem at all. But if *every* decision goes like that, the world becomes more and more artificial and less believable, because, well, the real world isn't like that.

Also, you can't compare the Renegade decisions 1:1 because the Renegade decisions are about making sure that there are no bad consequences, and paying the price. In the Renegade path, the Rachni queen can't be friendly or hostile because she doesn't exist anymore. There can be neither an added enemy nor an added friend. The Paragon hopes for the best but risks the worst. It's not believable that the worst *never* happens.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 novembre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How have paragons been forced to make a longer, more difficult path with the vast majority of their choices? Especially the big choices, or the end-mission choices?

About the only case I can think of is deciding how to get to the hot labs on Noveria, and you'll miss both items, experience, no renegade points, and future content if you simply fight your way through security.

Feros colonists, using grenades vs. just shooting them.

You serious? It's easier and faster to use the grenades on them, then if you run out of the grenades, knock them down.

[Phaedon]

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.

Extreme renegades shouldn't be rewarded for being non-idealistic robots either. Paragade is the way to go.

[vx SmOkEy xv]

where do i stand? i choose paragon and renegade.

I just play the game honestly. (if i was there. What would i do?)

[Undertone]

I swear paragon players must be the most retarded players ever. Renegades don't care about preference. What you choose is your own business.



As others have pointed out more eloquently that I ever would be able to - the issue is that Shepard's Talk-Jutsu is unrealistic and unbelievable. You can't make from a criminal a law abiding puppy with one speech, despite living his entire way murdering people etc. That's just plain stupid.



Having two paths. one of which being always correct or leading to benefits is simply illogical. Adding content for one path and removing content for the other is even more retarded. And no the idea that - you killed somebody, they aren't coming back is just as retarded. They don't have friends, siblings, family, organization that comes for revenge? That's the simplest way to add content for somebody you killed.

[Aigyl]

I personally go with:

Paragon: Hero who saves the day and gets the praise

Renegade: Badass anti-hero who looks cool

I don't think Bioware meant for their average gamer to think much deeper than this. After all, if you just picked up ME2 for the first time and are choosing to go Paragon or Renegade, you're looking at which you think will be cooler and more fun, not closely analysing the philosophical differences between the two and the results they get.

[Arijharn]

Actually, here's a paragon type decision that I would love to see in ME3 or something. In Neverwinter Nights 2 which I've been recently playing again (and apologies; but SPOILERS are here from now on) there is a part where you have to go to an area called Old Owl Well because it offers fresh drinking water for merchants and travellers going from one location to another and thus holds a strategic location. Long story short; the area is under attack by Orc tribes. In the course of your investigations you corner one Orc who you pretty handedly defeat and he gives you information in exchange for his life and promises to leave you alone because he is suitably cowed by your might. If you decide to honor your bargain with him, he takes off... only to immediately report on your involvement to the big bad Orc Chieftan that you will inevitably meet and correspondingly makes the fight harder (but not by much... or maybe I was just really high level for the area). End Spoilers...



No paragon decision in either ME1 or ME2 has meant you had to 'work harder,' other than perhaps the 'upgrades' to the Normandy to survive the suicide mission... but that isn't really 'paragon' or 'renegade' that fulfils the 'common sense' meter imo.

[Xilizhra]

You ask why Paragons should occasionally pay a price for misplaced trust and sentimentality? Here's why: because an even remotely believable universe is like that.

I agree. Paragon Shepard is smart enough not to misplace trust or sentimentality.

Also, it's a small thing, but you're wrong on both counts with Bhatia. Getting his wife's body back isn't inherently Paragon, and convincing him that the Alliance should keep it isn't inherently Renegade; there's Paragon and Renegade ways to do both. Plus, you hear on the news later that Alliance recruitment rates have dropped because people don't think that the Alliance can match geth technology.

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...

Actually, here's a paragon type decision  that I would love to see in ME3 or something. In Neverwinter Nights 2
which I've been recently playing again (and apologies; but SPOILERSare here from now on) there is a part where you have to go to an area called Old Owl Well because it offers fresh drinking water for merchantsand travellers going from one location to another and thus holds a strategic location. Long story short; the area is under attack by Orc tribes. In the course of your investigations you corner one Orc who you pretty handedly defeat and he gives you information in exchange for his life and promises to leave you alone because he is suitably cowed by your might. If you decide to honor your bargain with him, he takes off... only to immediately report on your involvement to the big bad Orc Chieftan that you will inevitably meet and correspondingly makes the fight harder (but not by much... or maybe I was just really high level for the area). End Spoilers...

No paragon decision in either ME1 or ME2 has meant you had to 'work harder,' other than perhaps the 'upgrades' to the Normandy to survive the suicide mission... but that isn't really 'paragon' or 'renegade' that fulfils the 'common sense' meter imo.

^^exactly such scenarios is what I miss in the ME games.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 novembre 2010 - 03:09 .