Renegade sometimes can be very fun. I like when Shepard says during a sidequest in Mass Effect 1 the following phrase "It looks like someone here needs some ass-kicking"
Besides, renegade side in Mass Effect 2 got the scars, something that paragons don't have any equivalent. It is not like Bioware forgot about the kick-ass side of things.
What's the point in being Renegade...
Débuté par
Gbowe
, déc. 14 2010 04:56
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 06:32
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
I do, I admit, like the scars there.
#78
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:06
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 174 messages
I *hate* the scars. Physical deformity resulting from moral choices? ME isn't Star Wars, damn it. And we're also not in a comic book, Mr. Walters! That they made their removal the most expensive research project is insulting. They shouldn't have been there by default, and their presence a 50K platinum research project.
As for the topic: I do not think that Renegade choices are more entertaining as a rule. And anyway, even if they are that's just a style choice. The point is: so far in decisions that actually have consequences, we have countless Renegade choices with undesirable consequences, and one (!) such Paragon choice - and as opposed to most other situations, you could know that it would have if you bothered to talk to people. So Paragons have their cake and eat it, so far at least. The Rachni have turned out friendly (who of us didn't just know that would happen?), the galaxy is more unified if you saved the Council, and who here wouldn't bet that keeping the Collector base will result in a Cerberus Evil Empire along with a little, if any actual strategic benefit in the war against the Reapers.
The problem is not the actual consequences of the Renegade choices. The problem is, by setting the consequences as one-sided as they seem to be, the game tells us that Renegade choices aren't pragmatic, that they do not result in the benefits that being pragmatic should give you, and in the rare cases they might, they come along with other, bigger consequences you might not care for.
There's also the problem that Renegade decisions are tied to a human dominance stance. I resent that. The kind of moderate Renegade I like to play make Renegade decisions because they make strategic sense at the time. That does mean, I will make them, if necessary, at the expense of morality. But I make them because I think they are the best and because Shepard is an officer and a Spectre who knows when things are too important to let morality interefere, not because I want to set up some human tyranny.
Here's the real question:
Why play a Renegade, when the benefits a strategic (as opposed to a moral) choice should have never appear, when you can make an ethically more satisfying choice without sacrificing any strategic advantage? My Renegades don't make their choices because they love violence, death and destruction - they do so because of a perceived desperate necessity (I avoid the jerk choices).
As for the topic: I do not think that Renegade choices are more entertaining as a rule. And anyway, even if they are that's just a style choice. The point is: so far in decisions that actually have consequences, we have countless Renegade choices with undesirable consequences, and one (!) such Paragon choice - and as opposed to most other situations, you could know that it would have if you bothered to talk to people. So Paragons have their cake and eat it, so far at least. The Rachni have turned out friendly (who of us didn't just know that would happen?), the galaxy is more unified if you saved the Council, and who here wouldn't bet that keeping the Collector base will result in a Cerberus Evil Empire along with a little, if any actual strategic benefit in the war against the Reapers.
The problem is not the actual consequences of the Renegade choices. The problem is, by setting the consequences as one-sided as they seem to be, the game tells us that Renegade choices aren't pragmatic, that they do not result in the benefits that being pragmatic should give you, and in the rare cases they might, they come along with other, bigger consequences you might not care for.
There's also the problem that Renegade decisions are tied to a human dominance stance. I resent that. The kind of moderate Renegade I like to play make Renegade decisions because they make strategic sense at the time. That does mean, I will make them, if necessary, at the expense of morality. But I make them because I think they are the best and because Shepard is an officer and a Spectre who knows when things are too important to let morality interefere, not because I want to set up some human tyranny.
Here's the real question:
Why play a Renegade, when the benefits a strategic (as opposed to a moral) choice should have never appear, when you can make an ethically more satisfying choice without sacrificing any strategic advantage? My Renegades don't make their choices because they love violence, death and destruction - they do so because of a perceived desperate necessity (I avoid the jerk choices).
Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:11 .
#79
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:08
Ryzaki
-
- Members
- 34 400 messages
And what pray tell are the horrible consequences the Renegades have suffered for their actions?
I give you the scar thing because that was just stupid. But besides that how exactly have the Renegades "suffered?" you lost some cameos? Some emails? Good grief you lost them because you didn't fulfill the requirements. That has nothing to do with "punishing" you. I have a few renegades who spared the Rachni queen. Was I rewarded for seeing her? No. It was simply a result of my actions.
I give you the scar thing because that was just stupid. But besides that how exactly have the Renegades "suffered?" you lost some cameos? Some emails? Good grief you lost them because you didn't fulfill the requirements. That has nothing to do with "punishing" you. I have a few renegades who spared the Rachni queen. Was I rewarded for seeing her? No. It was simply a result of my actions.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:10 .
#80
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:13
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 174 messages
Read what I just added to my post above, Ryzaki, to see what it's all about.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 décembre 2010 - 07:13 .
#81
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:18
Ryzaki
-
- Members
- 34 400 messages
Eh. Game limits. I have the same problem with Paragon Shepard being unable to be intelligent. Somehow being a goodguy means I can't listen. Being a good guy apparently means I'm so soft as to let someone run away twice and not do anything about it, when I do something I can't give pragmatic reasoning.
And really the whole notion that paragon = idealistic and renegade = pragmatic is lost on me. Both options have idealistic/pragmatic points.
And really the whole notion that paragon = idealistic and renegade = pragmatic is lost on me. Both options have idealistic/pragmatic points.
#82
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 07:25
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
I *hate* the scars. Physical deformity resulting from moral choices? ME isn't Star Wars, damn it. And we're also not in a comic book, Mr. Walters! That they made their removal the most expensive research project is insulting. They shouldn't have been there by default, and their presence a 50K platinum research project.
I agree that the system as it is was imperfect, but from a different angle; I liked the idea of Shepard having a physical and otherworldly-seeming sign of her death, and wish that there might have been Paragon scars as well (if they'd glowed blue, especially...).
Why play a Renegade, when the benefits a strategic (as opposed to a moral) choice should have never appear, when you can make an ethically more satisfying choice without sacrificing any strategic advantage? My Renegades don't make their choices because they love violence, death and destruction - they do so because of a perceived desperate necessity (I avoid the jerk choices).
Because the players seem to enjoy it.
#83
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 09:22
Markinator_123
-
- Members
- 773 messages
The scars were ridiculous. They just make you look silly. This isn't Star Wars!
#84
Posté 18 décembre 2010 - 09:31
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
But it takes elements from space opera.
Ah well. I liked them, anyway.
Ah well. I liked them, anyway.
#85
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 01:40
Aggie Punbot
-
- Members
- 2 736 messages
Ryzaki wrote...
And what pray tell are the horrible consequences the Renegades have suffered for their actions?
Might I ask why you feel that renegade players need to be punished for anything?
#86
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 01:44
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
The point was that Renegades haven't been punished, not that they need to be.
#87
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 02:01
Elvis_Mazur
-
- Members
- 1 477 messages
Scars are content. They are something that only the renegade side has. If you like them or not, that is just you.
I was just trying to refer about the issue where to be renegade= get less content. In a way, yes, but the scars are good content for those who like.
I was just trying to refer about the issue where to be renegade= get less content. In a way, yes, but the scars are good content for those who like.
#88
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 02:30
Aggie Punbot
-
- Members
- 2 736 messages
Essentially, it doesn't matter. Play the way YOU (the individual) want to, but don't come here b!tching and complaining that you are getting 'screwed' out of anything. You weren't forced to make those decisions, and nothing is preventing you from either doing another run or (for PC users) downloading a save game and using that to explore how the opposite alignment fares.
#89
Posté 19 décembre 2010 - 05:55
Killjoy Cutter
-
- Members
- 6 005 messages
Ryzaki wrote...
Eh. Game limits. I have the same problem with Paragon Shepard being unable to be intelligent. Somehow being a goodguy means I can't listen. Being a good guy apparently means I'm so soft as to let someone run away twice and not do anything about it, when I do something I can't give pragmatic reasoning.
And really the whole notion that paragon = idealistic and renegade = pragmatic is lost on me. Both options have idealistic/pragmatic points.
It doesn't help that in ME2, Bioware can't seem to decide if it's about classic morality, idealism vs pragmatism, foolish softhead vs smirking jerkass, against Cerberus vs against, or something else...
#90
Posté 28 décembre 2010 - 04:13
Sandbox47
-
- Members
- 614 messages
Schneidend wrote...
Gbowe wrote...
... If every single renegade decision will inevitabley bite you in the ass? This applies to Mass Effect 2 as well as 1 (however there isn't an ME1/ME2 spoiler discussion thread.) This doesn't just apply to pretty obvious, "this choice is actually better" (aka, letting Wrex live) but to the supposedly more "gray" choices (saving the Council is ultimately the better option then forming a Human Empire, letting the Rachni queen live is upiquitously a good thing to do, as you find out in ME2, etc.)
Is there any advantage at all to making a single Renegade decision over paragon in the game?
Renegades can easily spare Wrex by intimidating him or completing his armor quest.
Citing the dialogue in ME2 as a reason to spare the rachni queen is metagaming. Shepard doesn't have access to this information. It can easily be argued that it's safer to kill the queen and avoid the potential risk.
Whether or not saving the Council is the best idea is debatable. This hasn't had any serious benefits or consequences for either decision yet, even taking metagame into account.
You're still a Spectre with the Council alive. That's different. But yeah, otherwise I agree.
#91
Posté 28 décembre 2010 - 02:58
Brannon
-
- Members
- 155 messages
I almost never choose the "Kill them!" option. As many of us that's played the game multiple times now know, you can use your Renegade options to avoid being a psycho while still netting big Renegade points. I think some players don't realize that by choosing the "neutral" option in certain situations, this will lead to further savvy Renegade options further down the dialog tree.
#92
Posté 02 janvier 2011 - 11:11
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 940 messages
Telling the Turian council member to go to hell.
#93
Posté 02 janvier 2011 - 05:22
Renessa
-
- Members
- 313 messages
TS2Aggie wrote...
Your memory is faulty.snfonseka wrote...
According to my memory they all are related to "receving emails". So I am not going to worry about some missing emails.
- Conrad Verner appears in ME2 and will offer you a quest that will result in you receiving a discount at a vendor that you wouldn't normally be able to get.
- Shiala shows up on Illium.
- Fist shows up in Omega for a hilarious (and brief) cameo.
- Gianna Parasini shows up on Illium with a minor quest.
- An asari representing the Rachni shows up on Illium.
- Helena Blake shows up on Omega.
- Rana Thanoptis shows up on Grunt's recruitment mission.
This always amuses me. Somebody chooses to kill off all these NPCs (for whatever reason - I suspect mostly for the "lolz") and then they complain that they make an appearance in the second game and they miss out on that content. Well, if you kill people that's what happens. They are dead and they can no longer be of any use to you.
Especially in ME1 Renegade is more fun to play than Paragon. Is that not enough pay-off already? And then there is the possibility to actually play an intelligent Renegade - i. e. being efficient without needlessly killing mostly harmless people or pissing of NPCs that could become useful in the future...
Besides Fist and Helena Blake there is not one NPC on the list where it really would make sense to kill them.
By the way, when my first Paragon met the Rachni-controlled Asari, she was seriously freaked out. Come on - that is a very ambivalent scene! I am not convinced that saving the Rachni is such a brilliant idea after all....
If you save the Council as a Paragon, the feeling of betrayal is even bigger. You sacrificed human lives for what? The Council telling you, you are insane!
No idea how the decision of keeping the Collector base will work out. At the moment it is 50/50.
In the end only in ME 3 we will see the outcome of these actions.
#94
Posté 03 janvier 2011 - 12:31
Addai
-
- Members
- 25 848 messages
I think they should have been there by default. I didn't like the idea of the scars at first, but in the end I felt like it added something to the character, to show that she had once been a corpse and was only brought back using a lot of fancy machinery. My character was renegade/ paragon mix so she didn't go full Terminator, but the choice whether or not to use ship resources to fix herself is a good RP choice to have to make. Other team members don't get to fix their scars, so if you do the research project it's sort of reinforcing the idea that Cerberus will pay out the wazoo for Shepard but not for anyone else. Edit; IOW, I liked the scars as part of the game, but didn't think they should be tied to renegade/ paragon.Ieldra2 wrote...
I *hate* the scars. Physical deformity resulting from moral choices? ME isn't Star Wars, damn it. And we're also not in a comic book, Mr. Walters! That they made their removal the most expensive research project is insulting. They shouldn't have been there by default, and their presence a 50K platinum research project.
Besides the fact that materials are so plentiful, it's really not a big deal gameplay-wise if you do decide to get that upgrade.
Modifié par Addai67, 03 janvier 2011 - 12:35 .
#95
Guest_Mezzil_*
Posté 03 janvier 2011 - 03:00
Guest_Mezzil_*
Guest_Mezzil_*
-
- Guests
Ieldra2 wrote...
I *hate* the scars. Physical deformity resulting from moral choices? ME isn't Star Wars, damn it. And we're also not in a comic book, Mr. Walters! That they made their removal the most expensive research project is insulting. They shouldn't have been there by default, and their presence a 50K platinum research project.
I doubt Walters wanted that. People blame or credit the lead writer too much. It's the lead designer that is responsible for the overall vision. The level and combat designers then have their say. After that the, writers try to make sense of it all with dialog.
#96
Posté 03 janvier 2011 - 03:38
Bitterfoam
-
- Members
- 519 messages
Why? Because that's the proper way to RP my primary Shepard.Gbowe wrote...
... If every single renegade decision will inevitabley bite you in the ass? This applies to Mass Effect 2 as well as 1 (however there isn't an ME1/ME2 spoiler discussion thread.) This doesn't just apply to pretty obvious, "this choice is actually better" (aka, letting Wrex live) but to the supposedly more "gray" choices (saving the Council is ultimately the better option then forming a Human Empire, letting the Rachni queen live is upiquitously a good thing to do, as you find out in ME2, etc.)
Is there any advantage at all to making a single Renegade decision over paragon in the game?
Seems simple enough.
#97
Posté 03 janvier 2011 - 11:35
Gbowe
-
- Members
- 3 messages
Perhaps a consequence of saving the Council would to have Admiral Hackett die in the initial rescue of the Destiny Ascension, or attacking Sovereign with a now quite depleted Alliance Fleet? Hackett WAS in the Fleet that destroyed Sovereign, and choosing either the Council or Hackett would make for a far more serious decision.
#98
Posté 04 janvier 2011 - 01:44
Gbowe
-
- Members
- 3 messages
Brannon wrote...
I almost never choose the "Kill them!" option. As many of us that's played the game multiple times now know, you can use your Renegade options to avoid being a psycho while still netting big Renegade points. I think some players don't realize that by choosing the "neutral" option in certain situations, this will lead to further savvy Renegade options further down the dialog tree.
That's what I did, however that just makes me really hope Bioware is going to include ways for savvy Renegades to utilize the allies they were able to make to aid in Human supremacy.
Modifié par Gbowe, 04 janvier 2011 - 01:44 .
#99
Posté 04 janvier 2011 - 03:11
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
It's hilarious that Renegades make themselves out to be scapegoats and say Paragons are Bioware's favored people, when the vast majority of the forum board loves to pick Paragon Shepards (and sometimes their payers) apart as being idealistic idiots. I mean really, do you LIKE acting like a martyr, in the hopes that you'll be vindicated? You're not "punished" for anything. The fact you kill people means "less content" because those people WONT be around later to make a cameo. It's that simple.
The only instance of Renegades being "punished" is your squadmates disagreeing on keeping the Collector Base post-SM. And why can't your squadmates express their own opinions, anyway?
The only instance of Renegades being "punished" is your squadmates disagreeing on keeping the Collector Base post-SM. And why can't your squadmates express their own opinions, anyway?
#100
Posté 05 janvier 2011 - 07:04
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
RiouHotaru wrote...
The only instance of Renegades being "punished" is your squadmates disagreeing on keeping the Collector Base post-SM. And why can't your squadmates express their own opinions, anyway?
50000 platinum in extra costs of being renegade is quite tangible a punishment I'd say. Luckily, there is an option to renegade the whole ME2 via Gibbed's SE, but it's to no credit of BioWare.
