109 réponses à ce sujet

[Zan Mura]

Mr. Sniper Rifle wrote...

The debates fine; it's a fun little thing to discuss. Problem is, people are treating it like a war over which is the 'right' way to play, and then trying to cram it down the other side's throat.

Are you sure? I haven't felt anything crammed down my throat yet. Though usually people do behave much in the way you describe, I agree. Here however - while I haven't read the entire thread -, it seems more like people simply sharing their views, and some people simply taking the differences too seriously. Such as you. I could be wrong of course.

In any case, I do agree with your earlier sentiment. Let people play the way they like. It's not up to anyone else to criticize on their choices. I've been in a few debates over the ME1 decision to save the council, and some people really get in way over their heads there, attacking others personally because of a disagreement. As if choosing to not save the council would truly make you an evil moron who would murder innocents in real life etc.... not much that can be said to that really. <_<

[Bigdoser]

Mr. Sniper Rifle wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

This whole paragon vs renegade is ****ing childish, just enjoy the dam game and stop worrying about what other peoples choices are dear god =_=

It is childish to have a disscusion of the ethical/practical ramifications of brainwashing a race as opposed to preforming genocide on it?

edit:  I like the word ramifications better.

The debates fine; it's a fun little thing to discuss. Problem is, people are treating it like a war over which is the 'right' way to play, and then trying to cram it down the other side's throat.

As Mr sniper said I don't mind people debating certain topics but the OP just made this topic to spite/annoy paragons and the one who made the other topic is just as stupid. As I said I have no problem people discussing points what I hate is when people act like other people are beneth them or stupid for making a certain choice. The way some people are acting in this topic seem to think that paragons are stupid/naive. You can still be a paragon and make various decisions and be an a-hole you can still be a renegade and treat people with respect and such. I know a couple of renegade players who hate cerb and blew up the base, just cause your renegade does not = pragmatic decision making. Some people on this forum just have a huge stick up their ass imo, also the way how people act when discussing a certain choice if someone chooses a different choice some posters act like its the end of the world discussing various choices and such is fine but some people on this forum forget that it is a GAME.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:17 .

[Ieldra]

This is what I actually demand:

That every big decision has plausible and meaningful consequences, and that Paragons can't have their cake and eat it (read: make idealistic decisions that *always* turn out in their favor, while Renegades *always* have to deal with the fallout).

Paragons twist the universe in their favor. They're always right, their decisions never have negative consequences, and even the most naive, emotional and strategically and ethically meaningless justification ("this is an abomination") usually gets them the perfect result. That's outright hateful, a kick in the face of all players who want some realism in their Shepard's actions, not just Renegades.

Renegades, where they're not just jerks, are supposed to be pragmatic, the characters who make hard decisions because they're necessary. So, if they are, where's the benefit, damn it? Because if there never isn't any, the decisions aren't pragmatic any more. Even a Renegade, if seeing that his reasonable decisions never work, will learn that the universe makes no sense and reflexively make Paragon decisions in future, because actually thinking about the scenario and shaping your decision to fit it obviously doesn't work.

The game tells us: don't think, don't reason, choose Paragon. It's right ™. Just do what gives you the warm fuzzies, and the world will reshape itself to be as warm as fuzzy as you want it, consistency and rationality be damned. Despicable.

I want a balance. Not in every decision - sometimes being Paragon is better, sometimes being Renegade is better - but over the course of the game, no alignment should consistently have better outcomes.Most particularly in the big decisions - the Council decision in ME1, the Collector base.decision in ME2, among others.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:38 .

[GodWood]

Ieldra2 wrote...

This is what I actually demand:

That every big decision has plausible and meaningful consequences, and that Paragons can't have their cake and eat it (read: make idealistic decisions that *always* turn out in their favor, while Renegades *always* have to deal with the fallout).

Paragons twist the universe in their favor. They're always right, their decisions never have negative consequences, and even the most naive, emotional and strategically and ethically meaningless justification ("this is an abomination") usually gets them the perfect result. That's outright hateful, a kick in the face of all players who want some realism in their Shepard's actions, not just Renegades.

Renegades, where they're not just jerks, are supposed to be pragmatic, the characters who make hard decisions because they're necessary. So, if they are, where's the benefit, damn it? Because if there never isn't any, the decisions aren't pragmatic any more. Even a Renegade, if seeing that his reasonable decisions never work, will learn that the universe makes no sense and reflexively make Paragon decisions in future, because actually thinking about the scenario and shaping your decision to fit it obviously doesn't work.

The game tells us: don't think, don't reason, choose Paragon. It's right ™. Just do what gives you the warm fuzzies, and the world will reshape itself to be as warm as fuzzy as you want it, consistency and rationality be damned. Despicable.

I want a balance. Not in every decision - sometimes being Paragon is better, sometimes being Renegade is better - but over the course of the game, no alignment should consistently have better outcomes.

Amen

[Barquiel]

I really don't know why renegades constantly want to punish paragon decisions...



Where are Renegades punished, specifically?

[Bigdoser]

Honestly when I first played me1 and I saw renegade i was like oooh someone who does what it takes to get the mission done but then I realized that alot of renegade choices was you just being a jerk and such in me2 much more better renegade is less jerkish and paragon more assertive. The system needs alot more work my favourite paragon charm line is when you threaten to break the store keepers legs if he does not lay off the qurian was like O.O did paragon shep just say that? Anyway I agree there needs to be alot more balance, but some decisions so far has favoured either the paragon or renegade at various points.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:55 .

[Ieldra]

Barquiel wrote...
I really don't know why renegades constantly want to punish paragon decisions...

Where are Renegades punished, specifically?

This is more about the tangible benefit a pragmatic decision should have - at least occasionally - over an idealistic one. Idealism means sticking to your principles regardless of things getting more difficult from that. The "punishment" is that things *never* turn out any more difficult for the idealist, and the Renegade makes hard and uncomfortable decisions that make him lose sleep at night - for no gain. The Paragons get success and the warm fuzzies, the Renegades get a lesser success and nightmares. Those benefits *never* appear, of if they appear, they're meaningless (money, one or two less enemies). Saving the Rachni queen is a risk you take. They could turn out hostile. In this case, they turn out friendly, and that's perfectly OK. Things become problematic - unbalanced - if *no* risk you take by making a Paragon decision *ever* results in anything bad, if *no* Renegade decision ever results in anything better than a Paragon decision.

Things get worse where Paragon decisions are emotional and impulsive (see the Collector base, if you take Shepard's lines as an indicator). In reality, these have a habit of turning out badly. If they *always* turn out right, then ME becomes disconnected from what we know about life. It becomes unreal, a fairy tale, not an epic drama.

Note that almost all of my Shepards have more Paragon than Renegade points. But there are times when I think the Renegade decision is the better one. I accept that I can sometimes be wrong in that. But not that I'm *always* wrong, and not that I'm only wrong if I make a Renegade decision. 

Edit:
Elnora doesn't count, because you can know in advance that she's a murderer. The point of the big decisions is that you can't know the outcome in advance. Were it otherwise, everyone would make the decision with the better outcome.
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 janvier 2011 - 11:26 .

[luakel]

Barquiel wrote...

I really don't know why renegades constantly want to punish paragon decisions...

Where are Renegades punished, specifically?

I think Renegades are punished if you think of Renegade Shepard as a person who does very bad things for the greater good (unfortunately, the game merges this with "violent xenophobic jerkass"). After all, that seems to be the main justification for alot of Renegade actions... saving the base means saving lives in the end, leaving Overlord operational helps create a countermeasure against the geth, the rachni have to be killed because they might end up attacking the Citadel again in the future.

And really, none of those decisions have been clearly punished; it's not like letting the council (y'know, the central governing body of the galaxy) die meant that Shepard had to fight off angry alien assassins constantly. But when paragons (so far) have been able to make morally conscious decisions and still have everything turn out OK, that minimizes the renegade choices. Why should a Renegade make the tough choices when those choices don't even need to be made? The fact that Balak doesn't kill anyone when he is let go makes the decision to stop him on Terra Nova meaningless, because there's no real tradeoff... either you let some extra miners die and take the bad guy down, preventing him from doing any more harm... or you save the miners and Balak still doesn't do any more harm.

Don't get me wrong, I play paragon pretty consistently, but I can see where the renegades are coming from. It's not like anyone's forcing them to play paragon, but alot of their choices can be seen as completely free of positive consequences; they're making tough choices when the easy choice works just as well.

EDIT: ...and Ieldra beat me to it. Nice post, though.

Modifié par luakel, 19 janvier 2011 - 11:12 .

[STG]

If you make choices based on paragon/renegade instead of facts and situation, you deserve to get bitten in the *** regardless of what side you're on.

[Zulu_DFA]

Rachni Queen, that's it.

[masseffectexpert94]

The choices i think are mostly gonna alter me3 are



Destroying the reasearch for a geno****e cure



not doing every loyalty quest



making aderson/udina counsiler



Letting the council die

[masseffectexpert94]

and killing the rachni

[Fromyou]

Destroying the collectors base (I'm making a new profile of keeping it as proof).

[earthbornFemShep]

I generally play paragade. So, I obviously favor paragon choices. However, I do make some renegade choices because I fear the possible negative outcomes from the paragon choice.



1) Rewriting the geth

Sorry, but I just can't do it. I have always liked the geth, but I am skeptical of the effects of the rewrite... plus, what if the reapers sabotaged the code? I'm not going to give the reapers more allies. If Legion is fine with me killing them, I don't feel bad doing it.



2) Keeping the greybox... For me, the options should be reversed. The paragon option should be to delete it for her and let her move on. The renegade option should be keeping it in the hopes that you can crack it--thus gaining valuable info. However, as it is written, I take the "renegade" option and delete the thing.



So, those are those ones I didn't take because I figured they would bite me later.

[AUS Wookie]

All I can think of is the Collector Base, I am not entirely sure whether to blow it up or not. I am going to save just before it and then blow it up.

[jbblue05]

earthbornFemShep wrote...

I generally play paragade. So, I obviously favor paragon choices. However, I do make some renegade choices because I fear the possible negative outcomes from the paragon choice.

1) Rewriting the geth
Sorry, but I just can't do it. I have always liked the geth, but I am skeptical of the effects of the rewrite... plus, what if the reapers sabotaged the code? I'm not going to give the reapers more allies. If Legion is fine with me killing them, I don't feel bad doing it.

2) Keeping the greybox... For me, the options should be reversed. The paragon option should be to delete it for her and let her move on. The renegade option should be keeping it in the hopes that you can crack it--thus gaining valuable info. However, as it is written, I take the "renegade" option and delete the thing.

So, those are those ones I didn't take because I figured they would bite me later.

I don't think you get paragon or renegade points when deciding on the graybox.

[Ryzaki]

Barquiel wrote...

I really don't know why renegades constantly want to punish paragon decisions...

Where are Renegades punished, specifically?

They aren't. This is double standards at its finest.

If Paragons have things blow up in their faces I want the same for renegades.

Renegades kill people willy nilly yet never suffer a come uppance for their actions, Paragons save people willy nilly (criminals) yet those people turn their lives completely around.

It evens out most of the time. You tend to have quicker/easier battles and get more experience as a Renegade (In ME1 at least).

Paragons make several world alterating decisions and get thanks for people for doing it, some renegades get the same. Neither paragon or renegade ever get punished for their choices in any meaningful way. 

Heck the closes I saw to a punishement is if you couldn't make the paragon interrupt in LOTSB you started the battle with absolutely no clips.

The thing is with all this "OMG Paragons should be punished1!!!" is for some reason some of them think not getting cameos from people they killed is a punishment.

And Renegade does not have a monopoly on pragamatic decisions. I'm sick of the whole "CB paragon isn't pragmatic!" Uh...yes it can be just like CB renegade can be idealistic.

It's all just complaining that someone ends up not suffering from what you see to be the wrong choice.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 janvier 2011 - 05:15 .

[AUS Wookie]

I cannot decide which to do so I am going to save before hand and see what happens in number ME3. I will most likely go with re-writing the geth first, as my character is going down the paragon path.

[RVallant]

People jump the gun on the rachni queen, there's still time for indoctrination to put a spanner in the works for Paragon Shepards. But that's a risk worth taking I suppose.



I'm not entirely sure how Renegades get punished, if you pick to kill people/wipe out species then you will have consequences.



The way I see it. Renegades get things done ASAP, no matter what the cost. Paragons think of the bigger picture or the 'right' thing to do. Both have their uses.

[STG]

If you destroy the collector base Miranda quits her job. Without the help of Cerberus, her sister will get tracked down by her looney father since Cerb was keeping her hidden.

[thegreateski]

OH LOOK.



It's this thread again . . .

[masseffectexpert94]

earthbornFemShep wrote...

I generally play paragade. So, I obviously favor paragon choices. However, I do make some renegade choices because I fear the possible negative outcomes from the paragon choice.

1) Rewriting the geth
Sorry, but I just can't do it. I have always liked the geth, but I am skeptical of the effects of the rewrite... plus, what if the reapers sabotaged the code? I'm not going to give the reapers more allies. If Legion is fine with me killing them, I don't feel bad doing it.

2) Keeping the greybox... For me, the options should be reversed. The paragon option should be to delete it for her and let her move on. The renegade option should be keeping it in the hopes that you can crack it--thus gaining valuable info. However, as it is written, I take the "renegade" option and delete the thing.

So, those are those ones I didn't take because I figured they would bite me later.

the re write bug is improved on the reapers version and can't be hacked plus the geth would be very very
 powerful ally's and would spare the lives of countless organics for a army

[masseffectexpert94]

if you do everything paragon you will have in mass effect 3 an army of geth an army of rachni and an army of krogan hopefully led by wrex these will prove great shock troopers for destroying the reapers mass effect core from the inside like shepard does in me2.

[Zan Mura]

masseffectexpert94 wrote...

if you do everything paragon you will have in mass effect 3 an army of geth an army of rachni and an army of krogan hopefully led by wrex these will prove great shock troopers for destroying the reapers mass effect core from the inside like shepard does in me2.

This is possible. Comparatively it's also possible that Renegades would have the full backing of the human-led council armada, their own reprogrammed Reaper, and a bunch of incredible high-tech weaponry from the Collector base. This way both sides would get positives from their decisions. Of course, then people would min-max and get the best of both words unless the choices overlap somehow.

[earthbornFemShep]

Zan Mura wrote...

masseffectexpert94 wrote...

if you do everything paragon you will have in mass effect 3 an army of geth an army of rachni and an army of krogan hopefully led by wrex these will prove great shock troopers for destroying the reapers mass effect core from the inside like shepard does in me2.

This is possible. Comparatively it's also possible that Renegades would have the full backing of the human-led council armada, their own reprogrammed Reaper, and a bunch of incredible high-tech weaponry from the Collector base. This way both sides would get positives from their decisions. Of course, then people would min-max and get the best of both words unless the choices overlap somehow.

If those are the scenarios, you could easily game the system.   Just choose enough renegade choices in ME1 to make you lean renegade (but save the rachni and wrex), and kill the council.  Then, choose whatever throughout ME2 (keep Legion, rewrite the geth, save the cure research) and keep the base at the end.  That would, in your theories, give you a powerhouse in ME3. 

However, I hope that those scenarios are not as straightforward.  I think that if you aren't a renegade in ME2, TIM will drop you in ME3, thus negating some benefits.  However, that won't change my choices.  I think alignment should play somewhat more of a role than just your choices--it should change how people deal "see" you and interact with you.