228 réponses à ce sujet

[Aigyl]

easygame88 wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

*snip*

This.

On Renegades losing content - Conrad Verner's cameo was meant to be Renegade-only. If the import hadn't bugged Renegades would have arguably the best cameo in the game (except for Turian Councillor of course). Paragons were meant to just get an email. But yeah I see where Renegade players are coming from, still the cameos ain't that big a deal. Is meeting Rana again on Grunt's recruitment mission that important?

Zaeed's mission I think is fair. The choice is between saving the innocents or taking down the bad guy, not between saving the innocents or appeasing Zaeed. If you let Vido go he's not going to reform, he's still going to backstab people and ruin lives for money. You're doing a favour to the galaxy by killing him, it's a matter of whether it's worth letting the workers die for it.

If it was impossible for Paragons to get Zaeed's loyalty then the mission would be completely pointless for them. Companion loyalty is a gameplay mechanic, story choices shouldn't really affect it. If you let story choices significantly alter gameplay, especially in a game with a morality system, it's just going to encourage metagaming and people feeling the game is punishing them for no reason, other than making people playing the opposite morality feel better.

Ultimately you shouldn't let a few extra 5-minute cameos alter your choice on what you want to play. If you have more fun playing the hero, play the hero. If you have more fun playing the badass, play the badass.

[Xilizhra]

What's even the point of having decisions in a game if the game doesn't penalize (or reward) you if the end result is the same, why not just make it completely linear with some dialogue and then just let players at it if your decisions don't mean anything.

So that you can play through the game in different styles; leave behind a trail of corpses for the sake of realism, or not.

[PrinceLionheart]

Aigyl wrote...

easygame88 wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

*snip*

This.

On Renegades losing content - Conrad Verner's cameo was meant to be Renegade-only. If the import hadn't bugged Renegades would have arguably the best cameo in the game (except for Turian Councillor of course). Paragons were meant to just get an email. But yeah I see where Renegade players are coming from, still the cameos ain't that big a deal. Is meeting Rana again on Grunt's recruitment mission that important?

Verner was actually suppose to show up for a Paragon too, but it was cut out for some reason.

[PrinceLionheart]

Arijharn wrote...

Look, even if the Renegade kills miscellaneous Joes because he's a massive jerkwad that shouldn't mean he should get less content, it should mean he gets different content. Okay awesome, he can't have a group hug with the Rachni queen, but he should have some other mission somewhere that opens up to him because he's a ruthless bastard and people want to be on his side because they sure as hell don't want to not be on his side.

Epic777 wrote...
But that leads to only a renegade solution, only a renegade player would have a full set of survivors for me3.

And how is that any different to someone like Rio who in this very thread who has essentially said: 'tough' when we said that as Renegades we want both sides of this equation to have their consequences? Your explicit comment to Zaeed at the time was 'screw you' so of course you shouldn't have his loyalty... this is my entire point. The fact that the Renegades said 'sure' to Zaeed and went along with his demands and sacrificed those workers so Zaeed could get his revenge completely and utterly cheapens your decision in the first place.

What's even the point of having decisions in a game if the game doesn't penalize (or reward) you if the end result is the same, why not just make it completely linear with some dialogue and then just let players at it if your decisions don't mean anything.

Why should the Paragons throw the potential loyalty of one of his crew mates into the wind only to have his decision (and yes, when I got to that part I genuinely thought that I'd lose Zaeed's loyalty, but I decided to do so anyway) rendered entirely meaningless at the end? Honestly? It's bloody pathetic that we got away with it (sure I do it anyway because I like Zaeed, but I sorta sighed irl when I saw that I could get away with just a paragon statement in the end)

Personally I blame the linearness of ME2 on that fact not the "Blue instant win" button. The most character development characters like these have, especially Zaeed since he has no dialogue wheel, is during their loyalty mission. For comparisons sake I like to compare the scenario to Wrex's loyalty in the first. You could regain his loyalty, but only if you picked the right dialogue options and assisted him previously in reclaiming his family armor. Mass Effect 2 relied far to heavily on the Paragon/Renegade buttons to solve problems. And as much as people want to deny it, pushing the Renegade button solved the problem far to easily as well.

[Nimrodell]

That's the major misleading thing, as I said before, renegades actually have more choices if they don't choose lower side of options wheel by default thinking that's the only renegade option - BioWare was more generous toward renegade style of play, player just needs to determine what kind of renegade s/he wants to play - dumb rude brute or smart renegade that doesn't believe in easy redemption, but still doesn't believe in killing spree with no good reason for it. That's the major question for me, if Shepard is renegade that just goes for initial renegade options, why would s/he go for saving the galaxy or anyone but him/herself in the first place... why would s/he do anything that is not directly affecting his/hers life?



My renegade got Bathia's wife body back by being a renegade, had Wrex surviving as renegade (Wrex was deeply offended but he actually followed me), as Butcher of Torfan my Shep actually got father Kyle without a bloodshed as renegade... etc. It just depends on player's definition of renegade and renegades are not punished by story design. One more thing, in ME1 very often paragon and renegade Shepard say the same thing and your morality points are determined only by side of the wheel player chooses, I noticed that in my third ME1 playthrough.



Just check the meaning of the word renegade in every dictionary and you'll see that renegade doesn't have to be extremist in every sense of the word and BioWare did good job by toying with multiple options for renegades. As I said, renegade can actually accomplish many things as paragons and have a truly rich playthrough - it just depends on player's understanding of what renegade is.

[Phaedon]

Count Viceroy wrote...

But then I'm an idealist who finds grim-dark cynicism to be unrealistic

I'd argue thats not idealism at all but more out right denial

Unrealistic ? What planet do you hail from again?

Planet Renegade apparently.

[RiouHotaru]

Ah yes, the complaint about the outcome of mission being the same regardless of the path you picked. This is a common element among many Western-RPGs. It's not something new. And no, it's not making your decision cheap or pointless. It's called balancing gameplay. They're making it possible for people to achieve the same result, regardless of what path you choose. But you should know this, since Paragons and Renegades alike will be capable of defeating the Reapers. This isn't some hidden fact or secret.

[masterkajo]

My Shepard is always considering each decision and choose according to her(mine) own moral codex. Mostly this reflects in doing the right thing the badass way.
But she has made a lot of friends along the way and I am somewhat of a fan of those "cheesy" hollywood movies where everything works out perfectly in the end and the hero manages to pull through because of his friends and allies. (Isn't the message mostly that good wins even though the individual is weak in comparison to the strong bad guy but together they stand strong?)

However, I would like ME3 to be as "realistic" as possible about the upcoming Reaper invasion. By that I mean it is hardly possible to defeat them without huge losses because look at what Sovereign alone needed thrown at it to die. Yes, you have a lot of allies (Liara, Rachni?, Cerberus?...) and everyone will be prepared (hopefully choices in ME3 -  can you convince the council or not?). I'd like this decisions (from ME1, ME2 and ME3) to have a huge impact on the ending. Because if you have an entire species more on your side or the whole fleet of the council is prepared or not should make a huge difference.

I just hope there are a lot of different endings depending on all choices throughout the trilogy including Shepard being the hero and everything is saved but also the death (either optional or choice dependet) of Shepard and almost (if not all) of organic life.
Also, if Shepard should survive I would like to have the option of either being celebrated as a hero or just getting off grid (perhaps with your LI) and lifing a quiet live without everyone knowing (except some obvious exceptions) the whole truths who was behind all of the heroics of the trilogy.

I could go on forever... better to stop here and do some real life living.

Modifié par masterkajo, 27 novembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Manic Sheep]

Xilizhra wrote...

What's even the point of having decisions in a game if the game doesn't penalize (or reward) you if the end result is the same, why not just make it completely linear with some dialogue and then just let players at it if your decisions don't mean anything.

So that you can play through the game in different styles; leave behind a trail of corpses for the sake of realism, or not.

This^


There is no point comparing the outcomes of renegade a paragon decisions to decide which one is supposedly right. If you made the renegade or paragon decision in a situation then in that play through that is reality for your character. The opposing result does not exist in that universe so its not a matter of “I know I could have save the council and stopped sovereign so the choice is pointless” because your character doesn’t know that. Isn’t the whole point of a role-play to make decisions base on your how your character would react (or you if your character is an extension of your own morality)? And multiple decisions are there so you can customise the story.

Complaining that paragons get a nicer result is pointless because that is how paragon is meant to be and its not like any of the renegade options actually result in a big fail. Either way you’re still the hero at the end of the day. It comes down to what style you want to play. If you want to be a hero and have story with a relatively light tone pick paragon. If you want to be an anti hero and have a story with a darker tone pick renegade and you can mix paragon and renegade to your pleasure if your wanting something more in the mid ground or “realistic”.

I personally prefer stories with darker tone and if I make decision based on what I think I would do I often end up with a renegade option so that’s what I pick.  It works out fine and renegade is flexible enough that you don't actually need to be a complete ****** to everyone (assuming you’re not just picking the bottom lines and using the first renegade options that appears every time) to play one.

As I’ve said elsewhere the only problem I have with how renegade is handled is a lack of follow up BUT you really shouldn’t expect there to be a heck of allot of follow up when you kill someone.

It’s not like there is a huge amount of follow up for the paragons either, just a few emails and small cameo appearances. Still it would be nice if there was an occasional cameo to show that the renegade options in ME1 actually happened or if you actually go to see the new council even if they say the same sort of thing as the old council did rather than just removing the old council.

Edit: typos

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:36 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Aigyl wrote...

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!"

See, I am of the opposite mind. I would love to see the Rachni end up becoming your enemy. Such would be a prime example of an idealistic good intended choice backfiring in a completely realistic manner.

[Xilizhra]

I wonder if it escapes people that the rachni queen never did anything threatening...

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

I wonder if it escapes people that the rachni queen never did anything threatening...

Just like the current and future generations of Krogan Mordin Genophaged. Tragic, I know.

[masterkajo]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

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!"

See, I am of the opposite mind. I would love to see the Rachni end up becoming your enemy. Such would be a prime example of an idealistic good intended choice backfiring in a completely realistic manner.

Totally supporting that!!

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I wonder if it escapes people that the rachni queen never did anything threatening...

Just like the current and future generations of Krogan Mordin Genophaged. Tragic, I know.

Because constant internal warfare and frequently voiced desires for bloody revenge carry no threat whatsoever.

[Nimrodell]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What's even the point of having decisions in a game if the game doesn't penalize (or reward) you if the end result is the same, why not just make it completely linear with some dialogue and then just let players at it if your decisions don't mean anything.

So that you can play through the game in different styles; leave behind a trail of corpses for the sake of realism, or not.

This^


There is no point comparing the outcomes of renegade a paragon decisions to decide which one is supposedly right. If you made the renegade or paragon decision in a situation then in that play through that is reality for your character. The opposing result does not exist in that universe so its not a matter of “I know I could have save the council and stopped sovereign so the choice is pointless” because your character doesn’t know that. Isn’t the whole point of a role-play to make decisions base on your how your character would react (or you if you character is an extension of your own morality)? And multiple decisions are there so you can customise the story.

Complaining that paragons get a nicer result is pointless because that is how paragon is meant to be and its not like any of the renegade options actually result in a big fail. Either way you’re still the hero ant the end of the day. It comes
down to what style you want to play. If you want to be a hero and have story with a relatively light tone pick paragon. If you want to be an anti hero and have a story with a darker tone pick renegade and you can mix paragon and renegade to you pleasure if you wanting something more in the mid ground or “realistic”.

I personally prefer stories with darker tone and if I make decision based on what I think I would do I often end up with a renegade option so that’s what I pick.  It works out fine and renegade is flexible enough that you don't actually need to be a complete ****** to everyone (assuming you’re not just picking the bottom lines and using the first renegade options that appears every time) to play one.

As I’ve said elsewhere the only problem I have with how renegade is handled is a lack of follow up BUT you really shouldn’t expect there to be a heck of allot of follow up when you kill someone.

It’s not like there is a huge amount of follow up for the paragons either, just a few emails and small cameo appearances. Still it would be nice if there was an occasional cameo to show that the renegade options in ME1 actually happened or if you actually go to see the new council even if they say the same sort of thing as the old council rather than them just removing the old council.

Amen to this... and as I said, depending on nature of your renegade you'll actually get the same outcome as paragon would. Really nicely said .

[Aigyl]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Aigyl wrote...
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!"

See, I am of the opposite mind. I would love to see the Rachni end up becoming your enemy. Such would be a prime example of an idealistic good intended choice backfiring in a completely realistic manner.

Oh, I wouldn't mind something bad coming from the Rachni Queen decision. Just that I want there to be a logical chain of events that leads from me freeing the Rachni Queen, to there being negative consequences.

Eg. if I freed the Queen and she got randomly indoctrinated and killed a bunch of people, I'd be annoyed because there was no way in hell I could've seen that coming back in ME1. It would feel a tad cheap, like Bioware were trying to make the decision backfire for the sake of making it backfire.

If on the other hand, the Rachni Queen helped against the Reapers and rebuilt their species and civilisation, but in the future caused political and territorial problems for example, (because y'know, you gotta put a Rachni army somewhere after the fighting's done), I'd be happy with that because it would be a logical chain of events that started way back in Noveria, not something that came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of screwing bug-loving Shepards over. Hope that makes sense

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I wonder if it escapes people that the rachni queen never did anything threatening...

Just like the current and future generations of Krogan Mordin Genophaged. Tragic, I know.

Because constant internal warfare and frequently voiced desires for bloody revenge carry no threat whatsoever.

Small scale internal warfare that isn't threatening everyone else isn't moral grounds for universal involuntary abortions, including against those who've never done anything.

Collective punishment remains collective punishment.

[Xilizhra]

It's not punishment, it's a preventative measure. Do recall that when the chance came for the genophage to be lifted, the krogan who heard about it were all aiming for conquering the galaxy. Unfortunately, there's no way to make the genophage discriminate by moral fiber.

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not punishment, it's a preventative measure. Do recall that when the chance came for the genophage to be lifted, the krogan who heard about it were all aiming for conquering the galaxy. Unfortunately, there's no way to make the genophage discriminate by moral fiber.

Wow, you don't honestly buy that do you? Basically, you're saying if I had strong cause of suspicion that your family would do something bad to mine, it's within my right to exterminate yours (sorry, make it so that your family has a harder time for carrying a child to term) as a 'preventative measure.' They are brought up the way they are, and even if you strongly agree with the decisions the STG has taken in the past, they are still basically damning the species.

Tell me, do you agree with Legion where if you say during his LM that while you would take issue with brainwashing another organic species, you wouldn't with the Geth because they're organic to which Legion actually agrees with you? His words are basically: "Forcing your own morality on other species is racist, even benign anthropomorphism" 

I agree that the Genophage was necessary, but I don't just dismiss it's ongoing ethical concerns or difficulties like you seem to be doing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not punishment, it's a preventative measure. Do recall that when the chance came for the genophage to be lifted, the krogan who heard about it were all aiming for conquering the galaxy. Unfortunately, there's no way to make the genophage discriminate by moral fiber.

If your idea of a preventative measure is one that's causing a slow motion genocide, I tremble at your idea of punishment.

Regardless, if that's your position then killing the Rachni Queen isn't a punishment either. It's the exact same sort of preventative measure: whether she did something or not, her species is potentially very dangerous.

[Xilizhra]

Basically, you're saying if I had strong cause of suspicion that your family would do something bad to mine, it's within my right to exterminate yours (sorry, make it so that your family has a harder time for carrying a child to term) as a 'preventative measure.'

If my family had done the same thing in the past, and was very often talking about doing it again if they had the chance, and all had an acknowledged biological bloodlust... yes.

Tell me, do you agree with Legion where if you say during his LM that while you would take issue with brainwashing another organic species, you wouldn't with the Geth because they're organic to which Legion actually agrees with you? His words are basically: "Forcing your own morality on other species is racist, even benign anthropomorphism"

Yes, and notice that we're not forcing our own morality on the krogan by forbidding their own internal wars. We're only protecting ourselves.

I agree that the Genophage was necessary, but I don't just dismiss it's ongoing ethical concerns or difficulties like you seem to be doing.

It's a bad situation, and I do want to lift it as soon as the krogan can make themselves nondangerous.

[Xilizhra]

Regardless, if that's your position then killing the Rachni Queen isn't a punishment either. It's the exact same sort of preventative measure: whether she did something or not, her species is potentially very dangerous.

Difference. Nothing about the rachni queen's behavior makes me think that she's dangerous. All we have to speak of this is an ancient war during which we couldn't even communicate with them, as opposed to the current attitudes and culture of the krogan.

[Arijharn]

"Make themselves nondangerous"? That's rather absurd because every species is dangerous. The Krogan already have a DMZ forced upon them, is a Genophage heaped ontop of that just? Humans have a 'litany of bloodshed' to our name as well, are we next? Should we be next?

[CaptainZaysh]

Xilizhra wrote...
Difference. Nothing about the rachni queen's behavior makes me think that she's dangerous.

Professional threat assessment is based on capability, not intent.

Left unchecked, the rachni have the capability to wipe out the Citadel species.  Allowing them to secretly develop this capability and then hoping they will not develop the intent to use it is dangerously irresponsible to say the very least.

Forget your guesses and intuitions based on two minutes of dialogue with the rachni queen. Here is what we can say with certainty* about her species:
1).  Their survival is more important to them than our survival.
2).  They became the apex predators on their world by being highly intelligent, alert, aggressive and ruthless when necessary.
3).  They know the first two points are also true of us.

If you cannot see the potential for future conflict here then you are a fool.  Your idea that you can have a chat with a leader and confidently predict peace reminds me of Chamberlain and FDR cozying up with Hitler and Stalin.

* cribbed from The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski

[Talogrungi]

My ultimate ideal would be that every individual choice had a positive or negative outcome, based on my Shepard's choices throughout the course of the trilogy. I want some choices to work out best if resolved in a Paragon fashion, and I want some Renegade choices to ultimately prove to be the correct course of action in certain situations. Likewise, neutrality should pay off sometimes.

I want every single Paragon/Renegade player to reach the end of ME3 and think to themselves: "Crap, I wish hadn't happened. I wish I'd chosen differently."

Life isn't black and white. The results of monochrome morality shouldn't always be positive. The worst ending that ME3 could have (in my opinion) is that, for Paragons, everything works out great for everyone .. and for Renegades, everything works out great for humanity. If we can't make bad choices, then do we really have a choice at all?

Modifié par Talogrungi, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:55 .