105 réponses à ce sujet

[Pwener2313]

Ryzaki wrote...

Neither morality gets any real consequences for their actions.

Rachni don't seem to think so....

[Ryzaki]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Neither morality gets any real consequences for their actions.

Rachni don't seem to think so....

Ah yes because a good 2 minute cameo is such a real consequence. 

Be serious. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 février 2011 - 04:07 .

[wizardryforever]

Thompson family wrote...

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.

Don't forget about the Collector base circular argument threads, the threads debating endlessly the merits/flaws of Cerberus and TIM, and the threads complaining about ME2 not being ME1.

[Sajuro]

MajesticJazz wrote...

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.

If we are going to get into broken promises and lost dreams, Fable is an easier target.

[Pwener2313]

Sajuro wrote...

If we are going to get into broken promises and lost dreams, Fable is an easier target.

Yet people keep buying the games.

Example: Pwener

Modifié par Pwener2313, 14 février 2011 - 04:10 .

[Whatever42]

The choices you make in the game will have zero impact on defeating the collectors. Kill the council and destroy the collector base if you want, it has no bearing on how the game plays out.

The only effect choices have are on the flavour of your victory; specifically, how will you win and how will the galaxy look after you win. In traditional Bioware games, there are only a couple outcomes and all your choices will lead to one or the other. I am hoping that not only we will we have several outcomes but that the paths to those outcomes will also be different. However, I'm not counting on that.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 14 février 2011 - 04:11 .

[Pwener2313]

I hope that the only thing we get isn't a crappy slideshow like in Fallout: New vegas. 55 hours and I don't really get to see the outcome of my choices other then a voice.

[MajesticJazz]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

If we are going to get into broken promises and lost dreams, Fable is an easier target.

Yet people keep buying the games.

Example: Pwener

Maybe I am one of the view unbiased people who do not blindly kiss Bioware's feet for the creation of ME. Forgive me because I care to share my opinions that do not always applause Bioware but sometimes shows my discontent with some of their decision making in terms of the direction of ME. I guess it is toxic to be a concerned fan and the only true fans are those who just take what they are given without any question or concern.

I guess that makes me a whiner

Modifié par MajesticJazz, 14 février 2011 - 04:20 .

[Sajuro]

Pwener2313 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

If we are going to get into broken promises and lost dreams, Fable is an easier target.

Yet people keep buying the games.

Example: Pwener

I keep buying them too simply because it has the best rpg humor I have seen (Not to say I don't laugh at Mass Effect, but I don't play it for the funny dialogue.)

[Pwener2313]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

If we are going to get into broken promises and lost dreams, Fable is an easier target.

Yet people keep buying the games.

Example: Pwener

Maybe I am one of the view unbiased people who do not blindly kiss Bioware's feet for the creation of ME. Forgive me because I care to share my opinions that do not always applause Bioware but sometimes shows my discontent with some of their decision making in terms of the direction of ME. I guess it is toxic to be a concerned fan and the only true fans are those who just take what they are given without any question or concern.

True.

[MajesticJazz]

Casuist wrote...

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).

1. Let Fist go, and he becomes a normal citizen instead of going back to his old ways or even worse.
2. Let Helena Blake go free, and she becomes a humanitarian on Omega instead of starting up another crime organization dealing with other methods.
3. Save the Rachni Queen, and find out that they will be by your side to fight the Reapers


These are just three examples dealing with choices from ME1. ME2 presents a new set of choices like the Collector Base, Genophage Cure, Geth vs Quarians, Rewrite Geth vs Destroy Geth, Keep the Greybox vs Destroy it, Sabatoge Project Overlord or keep it running etc.....

It is going to be interesting to see how Bioware responds to these choices in ME3.

[Pwener2313]

Fist actually wishes he was still a criminal. He says so himself.

[jeweledleah]

from the top of my head:

let a poor little eclipse sister go...find out you just released a murderer.

save the hostages - allow a terrorist to go free and wreck more havok

[Sajuro]

Yes, how ludicrous Helena Blake cleans up her act after she says she will, that makes no sense whatsoever [/sarcasm]

[Hanar Shakespeare]

MajesticJazz wrote...

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.

Um...but....I...uh......

MajesticJazz wrote...

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.
 

You just said in your original post that the thread was about paragon versus renegade.

So, I would be ignorant if I read your thread title and your original post and deemed the thread to be a paragon versus renagade thread?

You want bad endings for paragons, and good endings for renegade's. Do you want what you declared in your original post, or do you want more varied outcomes for the many decisions we'll make in Mass Effect 3?

[Sajuro]

@ Hanar Shepard

It isn't that he wants bad endings for paragons and good endings for renegades, it is just that he thinks that Renegades should be rewarded for shooting people while Paragons be punished for showing emotions.

[DPSSOC]

I don't even think it goes that far, just that some Paragon choices should end up turning out not so well in the long run. For example sparing Balak to save the hostages certainly seems to be the "right" choice at the time, but later Balak ends up killing a much larger number of people. So yes you saved people in the short term but lost more in the long-term.

It's not about punishing Paragons it's about keeping things in balance. If every paragon choice ends up rainbows and bunnies it cheapens the choice. For example let's say you're given a choice of a chocolate milkshake or a slice of pie. You want both but can only have one and you make your choice. You later find out that had you chosen differently you would have been given both. So the next time you're given that same choice you pick the one that'll get you both anyway. By enforcing the idea that all Paragon choices will turn out well regardless you remove any weight from those choices.

I'm not saying that all, or even most, Paragon choices should bite you in the ass but I think at least a few should. Doesn't even have to be big stuff, could just be little things to make the universe feel a bit more real. I'll give you the Council, Rachni, and Geth all turning out for the good if you'll give me Balak, Elnora, and Jalid turning out bad.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 14 février 2011 - 05:34 .

[Ryzaki]

And the Renegades suffer how exactly? Should they not get some hardship?

[White_Buffalo94]

BurnedToast wrote...

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.

Yo ucan choose Morinth over Samara and solve your crew fights with either Paragon or Renegade scores. But I know what you mean, I lost Jacks loyalty in my canon playthrough where I chose to do things how I'd do them in the same situation, hypothetically. Gained her loyalty back later though thankfully

[AdmiralCheez]

STOP MAKING THIS THREAD. IT SHOWS UP EVERY DAMN DAY.



THERE ARE ALREADY EQUAL BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS FOR EACH MORAL ALIGNMENT. PARAGONS MAY GET MORE ALLIES AND MORE STORE DISCOUNTS, BUT RENEGADES GET EASIER FIGHTS, LESS ENEMIES, AND BETTER LINES.



SO STOP B*TCHING.



LOOK, YOU GOT ME SO WORKED UP I CAPSLOCKED. YOU ARE A BAD PERSON AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

[In Exile]

It isn't clear that renegade or paragon choices have significant effects in the game. As of right now, renegade choices are the 'take no prisoners' approach which means lots of dead bodies and so less cameos. There were really only two major decisions in ME1, the Council and the Rachni.

With the Rachni queen, it basically boils down in ME1 to "is she lying?" If you end up in Noveria last - i.e. you discovered the reapers, indoctrination, the fact Sovereign will be coming - then it's actually reasonable to believe that the queen was indoctrinated. So after that it's a matter of trusting her or not. With the Council, what you do sets the tone for humanity.

With the paragon Council, humanity is hailed heroically... but the asari, salarians and turians are the major political forces in the galaxy and humans are the new kids at the table. With the renegade choice you're heading toward a military dictatorship led by humanity; Shepard even argues for this in one choice with Udina in ME1.

People have frequently argued that diplomacy should fail and a paragon Shepard shouldn't always be rewarded for the diplomatic route... but a fully renegade Shepard is a bit of a violent anti-social ass. Constantly threatening and shooting people should eventually blow up in your face as much as trying to be too nice; but Bioware avoids the negative outcomes of both choices and has [b]both[b] choices come out as positive as they should.

[In Exile]

White_Buffalo94 wrote...
Yo ucan choose Morinth over Samara and solve your crew fights with either Paragon or Renegade scores. But I know what you mean, I lost Jacks loyalty in my canon playthrough where I chose to do things how I'd do them in the same situation, hypothetically. Gained her loyalty back later though thankfully

Charm/Intimidate checks depend on your relative paragon/renegade score, though. So if there were 80% available paragon/renegade points and you were a 50/50 player, you've picked up too little % points of either to make checks. So players that are mixed could actually have easier checks earlier in the game.

[wizardryforever]

DPSSOC wrote...
For example let's say you're given a choice of a chocolate milkshake or a slice of pie. You want both but can only have one and you make your choice.

That depends.  What kind of pie are we talking about here?  Is it chocolate, apple, cherry, lemon?  These things matter! 


In all seriousness, I don't know how much more they can really do to reward a renegade playstyle without being completely unrealistic.  I don't think that either decision should result in a "better" outcome, just different ones based on your choice.  It doesn't make any more sense to reward Renegades for their paranoia than it does to reward Paragons for their naivete.  If you must reward, keep them relatively balanced, i.e. don't have either choice be negative, just different.

[Whatever42]

Sajuro wrote...

Yes, how ludicrous Helena Blake cleans up her act after she says she will, that makes no sense whatsoever [/sarcasm]

I never use my paragon/renegade super powers to make her clean up her act because it simply seems too ludiricous.

It would be nice if we could have a fully nuanced game that realistically relfected every decision we make but let's get a grip, shall we? I know it's cool to be a hater but it's not kissing Bioware's feel to recognize that computer games cannot yet simulate real life. They cannot economically tell 100 different stories within one computer game. The most they can do is to offer superficial outcomes and leave the rest to your imagination.

[Dark Specie]

I think both Paragon and Renegade choices will be shown to have positive and negative consequences. However, overall, I think it'll be possible to end things on a fairly nice note as either - I doubt ending the game as a Renegade will be the same as, say, siding with the Legion in FONV.

True, there's a bit of a lack of direct consequences in  ME2, but ME3 should hopefully be different - because that's when the seeds we've planted in the previous games bear fruit, for the better or worse.

And I really wouldn't be surpised if at least a few Paragon choiues can't turn out to be wrong, a la the choíce between Bhelen and Harrowmont in DAO...