105 réponses à ce sujet

[MajesticJazz]

As the title says, to keep things balanced and unpredictable, I believe that there should be positive outcomes to Renegade choices and negative outcomes to Paragon choices made throughout ME1 and ME2.

The reason why I say so is because it would keep things balanced. ME isn't supposed to be about Lightside vs Darkside and good vs evil (in terms of moral) but rather Paragon or Renegade.

At least up to ME2, it would appear that Bioware is making it to where making mostly Paragon choices would benefit you more in the end versus making mostly Renegade choices.

An example:

It would be interesting to find out in ME3 that by destroying the Collector Base, Shepard is now a few steps behind than he would have been if he were to just give it to the Illusive Man.

Or by killing off the counsil in ME1, would make things harder for Shepard in ME3 to gain the trust/loyalty of the galactic races.


Again, the way things are shaping up, it seems like 100% Paragon Shepards = Walkthrough in ME3 while 100% Renegade Shepards = Difficult time in ME3. 

[vanslyke85]

it's a good thing i get reminded of this every 4 days...i keep forgetting

[Vaenier]

vanslyke85 wrote...

it's a good thing i get reminded of this every 4 days...i keep forgetting

lol, try every day

[catgirl789]

The renegade choices seem to alienate the galaxy at large, mostly because renegades don't seem to care about most of them. This results in a loss of ally support, however I believe that by ME3 renegades will have managed to have consolidated all the power that Paragons have spread throughout their alien allies into the human force.



In short I think the power of the two paths will be equal in total, it will just be distributed differently. Renagons/Paragades might be screwed though.

[MajesticJazz]

vanslyke85 wrote...

it's a good thing i get reminded of this every 4 days...i keep forgetting

Well maybe because there is some relevance to it.

People do not want this to be another "Star Wars" in terms of morality with the notion that by doing good "Paragon" you will be rewarded in the end while being bad "Renegade" would leave you with you with the harder route.

[Null_]

Remember that asari merc novice on Ilium? Elnora I think. Letting her go is paragon action, later on you learn she killed the volus... Just think about consequences!!! She might go after you in ME3...

SEE PARAGON IS RISKY

/sarcasm

[Pwener2313]

F**** the races! I have my army already set up. The council races can kiss my ass.

[MajesticJazz]

Null_ wrote...

Remember that asari merc novice on Ilium? Elnora I think. Letting her go is paragon action, later on you learn she killed the volus... Just think about consequences!!! She might go after you in ME3...
SEE PARAGON IS RISKY
/sarcasm

Sarcasm asside, this is what ME needed more of. There was this whole theme of being resonsible for your actions back in 2005 and 2006 before ME came out. This gave me the indication that even by making good decisions in the short term, it could play out negative in the long run and vice versa. Thus far, we have seen very little of this.

[PauseforEffect]

Renegades have it harder? So, backstabbing Cathka and getting the shortest interrogation record ever with Elias Kelham doesn't count? There have been plenty of renegade moments in ME2 where battles have been shortened. Thane's mission is a perfect example of where being a renegade got past a tedious conversation with Kelham.

[Null_]

The whole Paragon/Renegade system is meh...at best

Just make all decisions white. and mix up the sides(okay I know I ll ****** off blind people that want to go full paragon. sorry). It doesnt make sense that I cant be rude to certain characters and be nice to others. Why should shopkeepers care that I shout at Udina? How do they even know about it???

[MajesticJazz]

PrimalEden wrote...

Renegades have it harder? So, backstabbing Cathka and getting the shortest interrogation record ever with Elias Kelham doesn't count? There have been plenty of renegade moments in ME2 where battles have been shortened. Thane's mission is a perfect example of where being a renegade got past a tedious conversation with Kelham.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

I'm not talking about Renegade choices being to hard or Paragon being too easy. I'm talking about Renegade choices always leading to a negative outcome while Paragon always most of the time leads to a positive outcome.

Another Example:

Wouldn't it be interesting if you let Balak go in ME1's Bring Down the Sky to only find out later that in ME3 he ends up destorying a significant human colony? Or by not letting Thane's son in ME2 shoot the Turian running for office, then in ME3, humans have a much harder time on the Citadel and access is very limited for humans. 

[James2912]

I think your right OP it would be great if various decisions we made unexpectedly bite us in the ass more often! Watch out people will try and make this a paragon vs. renegade thread even though its obviously not!

[marshalleck]

Bioware don't punish paladins. Never have, never will. The Paragon/light side path will always result in the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

[James2912]

What about Elnora the Eclipse sister?

[Sajuro]

[MajesticJazz]

James2912 wrote...

I think your right OP it would be great if various decisions we made unexpectedly bite us in the ass more often! Watch out people will try and make this a paragon vs. renegade thread even though its obviously not!

Exactly!

This is not a Paragon vs Renegade thread but simple ignorance woudl try to might it such.

I find value in both Paragon and Renegade. I just do not want to finish ME3 and look back and see how nearly everything was in the favor of Paragon decisions. Remember, Renegade does not equal evil or bad, just a much more harsher way to get things done like killing the counsil, letting Balak kill the hostages, and giving Illusive Man the base.

When I first played ME2 and went through the part where we meet up with the Asari on Illium whom is controlled by the Rachni (If you saved the Queen in ME1), it was at this moment where I had this gut feeling that Bioware was making Paragon = Positive outcomes with Renegade = No Outcomes or Negative Outcomes that leave Shepard at an disadvantage in ME3.

There needs to be more surprise in that we must be skeptical about our decisions whether they are paragon or renegade. if everything Paragon ends up being positive, that takes away from the skepticism and makes things more unbalanced and in favor for Paragon Shepards. 

It would be interesting to see Shepard start off on the wrong foot in ME3 because he/she destroyed the Collector Base, just as an example. 

This isn't about Renegade vs Paragon and which one is better. This is about creating balance and not having biased storytelling. 

Now of course, there should be negative outcomes due to Renegade choices because there are many renegade choices that are just dumb and don't make sense. But there are many other Renegade choices that are very reasonable like allowing the hostages to die to go after Balak or destroying the Genophage cure to name a few.

If you feel like this is a thread that has been done one too many times, then just do not reply and let the thread fall out of decision.

[Casuist]

MajesticJazz wrote...


Wouldn't it be interesting if you let Balak go in ME1's Bring Down the Sky to only find out later that in ME3 he ends up destorying a significant human colony? Or by not letting Thane's son in ME2 shoot the Turian running for office, then in ME3, humans have a much harder time on the Citadel and access is very limited for humans. 

Wouldn't it be interesting if killing Balak led to a major push for retaliation fromthe Batarians? 

Wouldn't it be interesting if Kate Bowman contributed significantly to the war effort in some way?

Wouldn't it be interesting if letting Talid die led to Kelham receiving too much power and disruption of the ward in a similar manner?

Coming up with a just-so story to justify your perspective as the "right" decision is absurd when so many outcomes are possible. To date, the rengade/paragon dichotomy has had very little impact on gameplay while it does influence the appearance of the ME universe in a predictable manner, and choices which are anbiguous are not revealed to be "right" and "wrong" but rather bringing about varied mixed outcomes.

"Gotcha" moments of generating a negative result for ambiguous choices should not be applied dispropotionately to paragons just because renegades feel lonely in their human-centric universe. 

Modifié par Casuist, 14 février 2011 - 03:41 .

[White_Buffalo94]

The only thing about Ren. and Par. that bothered me is that, no matter what, options that show your support for Cerberus are Renegade options. It pisses me off because if you show your support for saving humanity openly, then you are punished (If playing Paragon). While Paragon choices show your entire distrust for Cerberus, which would make no sense since trust is really what matters when teams need to accomplish somethign like saving humanity

[Casuist]

It would be interesting to see Shepard start off on the wrong foot in ME3 because he/she destroyed the Collector Base, just as an example.

There are an equal number of reasons for preserving the base resulting in the same outcome.



What is most likely is that the base destruction or preservation will have an impact on the epilogue and that, as expected, granting the base to the human-centric terrorist group will benefit TIM's aims in the long term.

[MajesticJazz]

Casuist wrote...

It would be interesting to see Shepard start off on the wrong foot in ME3 because he/she destroyed the Collector Base, just as an example.

There are an equal number of reasons for preserving the base resulting in the same outcome.

What is most likely is that the base destruction or preservation will have an impact on the epilogue and that, as expected, granting the base to the human-centric terrorist group will benefit TIM's aims in the long term.

I understand your points, but from what I remember (and I'm looking for the link now), way back in early 2006 or late 2005, I remember reading an interview/article in which Bioware detailed that they wanted to put a great emphasis on choice and the outcomes of them. It mentioned that choices that might seem positive in the short term might end up being bad news in the long run and negative choices in the short term might turn out to be valuable in the long run.

The way the series has been playing up so far has been: Positive choices in the short term leads to valuable in the long run and negative "renegade" choices in the short term leads to negative outcomes in the long run.

A completely unbalanced system and a 180 degree turn from what Bioware initially had for ME.

[BurnedToast]

Paragon is about being the hero and saving the galaxy.



Renegade is about pushing people out windows and headbutting krogen.



Why does it matter if the paragon choices are 'right'? You play full paragon so you can be the hero who always saves the day. You play full renegade when you want to beat people up and be a badass.



It's like saying sometimes when you pick the renegade choice to headbut the enemy they should end up stronger then you and beat you up and take your medigel. Maybe it's realistic for some paragon choices to turn out bad, just like it would be realistic for shep to sometimes lose fights - but that's not what the game is about.



If anything you should complain about how the system (ESPECIALLY the ME2 system) stupidly punishes people who don't go full one way or the other. Hope you never, ever picked a paragon choice ever if you want to recruit moranth or stop your crewmates from fighting.

[Casuist]

MajesticJazz wrote...

The way the series has been playing up so far has been: Positive choices in the short term leads to valuable in the long run and negative "renegade" choices in the short term leads to negative outcomes in the long run.

I have yet to see a legitimate example of this. There is not yet any concrete evidence of tong term benefit or detriment of the Balak decision, the Rachni decision and even the council decision. Minor differences of 0.5% of content in cameos does not a "reward" make. I would expect many of these decisions to have both positive and negative consequences in the long term (as would be expected from most real-life decisions of a similar nature).

[Ryzaki]

Oh look it's another thread trying to punish paragons while renegades get a free pass.



Neither morality gets any real consequences for their actions.

[Thompson family]

vanslyke85 wrote...

it's a good thing i get reminded of this every 4 days...i keep forgetting

Hear, hear. This topic  is giving "ME2 isn't a real RPG" a run for its money in the soretail whiner's sweepstakes.

[Elite Midget]

I think Bioware got the Memo and has already decided if they will do what some here want or not. I mean, ME3 has been in development for how long now? Pretty sure they know what direction they'll be taking.