105 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

Ryzaki wrote...

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

Renegades would have to deal with not getting the boons the Paragons get (No Rachni, Fewer Geth, and an antagonistic Council).  I'm not saying Renegades are hard done by but Paragons seem to be heading in to ME3 with a considerable head start.  So as it stands we go in to ME3 with absolutely no non-human help (Council races don't like us, Geth are weakened, Quarians in civil war mode, Rachni dead, etc.) and that's the price we pay for our short-term gains; I'm fine with that.  All I'm looking for is a bit of balance, even an illusion of balance, because it's not there.  Now it's only ME2 so things could change but it's looking like the Ren choices are short-term gain, long-term cost (and that's cool) while Para choices are short-term gain, long-term gain (less cool).

To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on future ally
- Paragon
Gain - Future ally
Cost - Nothing

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing

You see what I'm getting at.  Now like I said it's only ME2 and ME3 may fill in a couple of the "nothing"s but that's where the scoreboard sits so far (unless I missed something in which case feel free to point it out).

Now I have no problem with the Renegade Gain/Cost I fully understand why some of my choices are kicking me long term.  What bothers me is there doesn't seem to be any balance on the Paragon side; what is the cost of your gain?

wizardryforever wrote...

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! 

And for a brief moment I did consider naming a type of pie but then I remembered some people are weird and don't understand which pies are the good pies so I figured I'd leave it vague.

wizardryforever wrote...
In all seriousness, I don't know how much more they can really do to reward a renegade playstyle without being completely unrealistic.

And that's why I don't like these discussions.  I don't have a problem with how the Renegade lines turned out.  I'm perfectly fine with killing the Council leading to alien hostilities and killing the Rachni losing me an ally I like it it's a clear cost/gain exchange I can follow.  My issue is that I'm not seeing the same exchange for Paragons (though admittedly I'm looking solely at story and may need to take gameplay into account).  They have their gains (benefit of choice) but I'm not seeing any cost.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 14 février 2011 - 06:10 .

[Manic Sheep]

Ahhh this again.

None of the renegade decisions have turned out really badly or screwed you over in a major way. They aren’t “as nice” I suppose as the paragon choices if you want to compare them but that it. Personally thats is fine by me since that’s the reason I picked the renegade options in the first place. It would be odd if I was getting sunshine and roses from being ruthless and killing those I don't trust or from getting the council killed even if it was only to focus on Sov. It would alos be very WTF if people liked a character that was a dick to them. If I wanted a feel good story I would pick paragon and I don't, so it fine. When do Anti heros ever make for a happy story?

As I’ve said before, with all the renegade decisions so far the consequences were right in front of your face the whole time. You killed the rachni queen? Of course you’re not going to see her again. This is hardly a surprise, if you wanted to see her again you should not have killed her. You chose to remove her from you game for whatever reason, why does it matter to you that on someone else play through they got a very very short cameo? Or that it didn’t backfire (at least not yet, it still could) for those that saved her? In you renegade play through that reality does not exist and if you do not like the renegade path why are you picking it. Also if you are in fact wanting human dominance (which is a renegade thing) then things are going swimmingly I’d say.

And as for the paragon decision being the best both in short term and long term, we don’t even know that because the series hasn’t finished yet and they could spin the decisions wither way at this point or have it work out for both. Even the council decision, if you listen to the news reports everyone is arming up. Sounds bad? Yeah it dose but it could also end up being good for when the reapers attack.

So far there have been 2 paragon choices that had negatives that I can remember.
Elnora- You let a murder go

Balak- Yes you get a nice email form the girl you saved but you also get a news report saying Balak is still at large. If you killed him or sent him to the alliance then you got what you wanted. He is no longer an issue and isn’t going to kill any more people in the future, congrats.

Honestly I do want some of the decisions to backfire in some way because I want to have my all of my characters to make a major wrong decision at least once but I can kind of do that by just picking the white options so it’s not a huge thing.

They could have added a few renegade cameos or emails I guess. That they coped out and didn’t let you see the new council is the only one that actually annoys me. I didn’t expect them to be replaced by better characters or anything but it would have been nice to see them even if they were bland. It is worth remembering that most of the cameos and emails were not actually paragon specific. The wrex decisions is not para or ren, the decision with the guy who wife died is not para or ren. Helena Blake was not para or ren. Parasini also had a renegade path.
They could have had renegade equivalents to some of the cameos and emails I guess. Like for example if you played BDtS the guy could have emailed you just as sort of a reminder that yes you played it and yes your decisions did actually matter rather than it being just like you never even played it at all but honestly I don’t really care about stuff like that and I don’t know why people make such a big deal about it.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 14 février 2011 - 06:25 .

[AdmiralCheez]

DPSSOC wrote...

To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on A POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - POTENTIAL TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - HUMAN LIVES

Fixed, bro.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 14 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[TheBlackBaron]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on A POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - POTENTIAL TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - HUMAN LIVES

Fixed, bro.

That's the point though, Admiral. Evidently humanity didn't actually lose all that many lives saving the Council and the Rachni are totally peaceful and not hurting anybody, with them specifically telling you they'll join the fight when the time comes. 

No matter what potential cost there is, it always seems to be minimized or non-existent with Paragon decisions. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 14 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[Breakdown Boy]

You reap what you sow. If you are a jack ass kicking people when their down, blowing up residential areas in stead of industrial then people are generally not going to like you or help you.

If your a good guy who helps people, shows mercy to does who might not deserve it then you might end up with more allies.

It doesn't really makes sense to reward the "hero" for being evil. You want to be a results at all costs kind of guy then go for it. But don't expect a parade when your finished and the only person left standing is you.

Modifié par Breakdown Boy, 14 février 2011 - 06:55 .

[Casuist]

MajesticJazz wrote...

1. Let Fist go, and he becomes a normal citizen instead of going back to his old ways or even worse.

Fist was always an opportunistic criminal, and he shows little sign of any particular reform for all that his nominal business may be legit. 

2. Let Helena Blake go free, and she becomes a humanitarian on Omega instead of starting up another crime organization dealing with other methods.

...of which I'm rather suspicious, but then she also was quite aware of the risks of going back on her word to a spectre. 

3. Save the Rachni Queen, and find out that they will be by your side to fight the Reapers

Allegedly. We have no idea what the eventual influence of the Rachni may be on ME3. It shouldn't really be a surprise or a cause of disappointment if your kill

These are just three examples dealing with choices from ME1.

...three minutes of cutscenes with no impact on gameplay in a 30 hour game.

[Dark Specie]

Breakdown Boy wrote...

You reap what you sow. If you are a jack ass kicking people when their down, blowing up residential areas in stead of industrial then people are generally not going to like you or help you.

If your a good guy who helps people, shows mercy to does who might not deserve it then you might end up with more allies.

It doesn't really makes sense to reward the "hero" for being evil. You want to be a results at all costs kind of guy then go for it. But don't expect a parade when your finished and the only person left standing is you.

But Bioware's argument is that even a  Renegade Shepard is not really "evil" - he's just a jerk-ish/jerkass hero

[Breakdown Boy]

Punching Al-Jalani (or WTF her name is) is being a jerk.

Compromising ethics or morality for personal gain is evil. I mean siding with Morinth is evil, convincing Garrus to kill for revenge is evil some other decisions are just heartless but not evil.

Renegade is not pure evil but evil enough.

Modifié par Breakdown Boy, 14 février 2011 - 07:25 .

[Commander Kurt]

For the sake of the discussion, please separate cosmetic outcomes from practical outcomes because this forum constantly confusing the two is making my head hurt.


Cosmetic outcomes;

Paragon - Galaxy is united, but humans aren't leaders of the pack (by far). Plenty of allies at the cost of a weakened Alliance and less to no say in the galactic community. This has not cost you anything so far regarding your chances of success, and nothing is indicating that it might. None of your gambles has yet to bite you in the ass.

Renegade - Humans are the force of the galaxy, with the strongest military and all the political say. The price is that humanity, however strong, is on their own. This has not cost you anything so far regarding your chances of success, and nothing is indicating that it might. None of your gambles has yet to bite you in the ass.

Practical outcomes;

Paragon - More cameos, more popular.

Renegade - Easier fights, more bad ass.


It's pretty damn balanced, people. You may be a Renegade secretly longing to be loved by everybody, or a Paragon deep down wanting to push people out of buildings, but that's life for you.  

[AkiKishi]

It's common sense. You treat people well they appreicate it, you get a reputation for being person of integrity.
You act like a jerk and word gets around , or you leave a trail of bodies that are incapable of being much help to anyone.

Renegade interupts make things easier. That's a fact.
Being a Paragon generally makes things harder. Good example would be dropping your weapons in the Visir fight. You need a really high score for the other option.

I've never limited myself to one or the other. But I tend more towards Paragon because I don't act like a jerk to everone I meet.

I don't think the Renegades are "evil". My Renegades view is that you don't help people because by doing so you are robbing them of the strength to help themselves. If they die, well they were weak. His outlook is a lot like Grunts only a bit more evolved. In "play" he comes across as a total jerk, but that's not his motivation.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 14 février 2011 - 09:05 .

[Ieldra]

My beef is specifically with those decisions where you make a gamble with the Paragon decision, especially if it affects the main plot.

*Save the Rachni queen? There's a signficant chance she'll turn out hostile anyway.
*Save the Council? There's a significant chance it would have adversely affected the fight against Sovereign.
*Destroy the Collector Base? There's a significant chance that you will miss out on much needed technology

...and so on.

In these cases, the Renegade decisions are neither those of a jerk nor are they evil, they are determined by perceived strategic necessity. If all these gambles turn out in favor of the Paragon, then the universe is implausibly slanted in favor of the Paragon, and there is no point to the Renegade option except if you want to go for human domination.

My Renegades will live with being disliked by people because they made the hard decisions. They will live with the nightmares of seeing people like Kate Bowman killed because they just couldn't let a terrorist go. *I* as the player will live with getting less content for my Renegades.

But if all of the above decisions turn out in favor of the Paragons (and two already have), if there is never an advantage - a real, main plot affecting advantage -  coming from supposedly pragmatic decisions, then *I* cannot believe in that universe. It is, then, a universe based on the just world fallacy, where everything that gives you the warm fuzzies is, miraculously, also always what solves your problems.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2011 - 09:25 .

[AkiKishi]

Ieldra2 wrote...
But if all of the above decisions turn out in favor of the Paragons (and two already have), if there is never an advantage - a real, main plot affecting advantage -  coming from supposedly pragmatic decisions, then *I* cannot believe in that universe. It is, then, a universe based on the just world fallacy, where everything that gives you the warm fuzzies is, miraculously, also always what solves your problems.

Renegade advantages are immediate. As to play affecting ? In what way exactly ? Those are no more a real advantage than smacking the guy over the head for an easier battle, or the numerous other renegade short-cuts.

[Commander Kurt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

But if all of the above decisions turn out in favor of the Paragons (and two already have), if there is never an advantage - a real, main plot affecting advantage -  coming from supposedly pragmatic decisions, then *I* cannot believe in that universe. It is, then, a universe based on the just world fallacy, where everything that gives you the warm fuzzies is, miraculously, also always what solves your problems.

What advantage are you talking about? EVERYTHING is working out for EVERYONE.

If you're a pragmatic, you should be loving that humanity is calling the intergalactic shots and has the strongest military. That's seriously not enough for you?

[Kekkis]

Does Council and other races even know, that Shepard has private Rachni Army? I could imagine that it could be a bit problematic to get Turians lend their transport fleet to get Rachni hordes to Earth. Rachni can cause lots of problems and paratalk, while renegades can just go and shoot things.

[AkiKishi]

Kekkis wrote...

Does Council and other races even know, that Shepard has private Rachni Army? I could imagine that it could be a bit problematic to get Turians lend their transport fleet to get Rachni hordes to Earth. Rachni can cause lots of problems and paratalk, while renegades can just go and shoot things.

The Rachni have ships. Not sure how many , but they do at least have scout ships.

The Rachni may also not be ground troops. It may be that you can use their singing to lure a Reaper as an alternative to something else.
Smacks heavily of Sin being drawn to the Song of the Faythe, but it's possible.

Being an unknown and not being a race that's evolved on Mass technology they are a bit of a wildcard with regards to the Reapers.

[V0Y4G3R]

Although I agree that some Paragon choices would be very bad in long term, most seem to have the galaxy's welfare as a whole in favor. But about Renegade options, I feel the same that keeping the collector base intact would have positive consequences, however, most are just acting badass.

[BurnedToast]

I think some people are still missing the whole point. It's not about choices turning out bad or wrong.



Think of it like this: there are two types of choices 'big picture' and 'little picture' choices.



An example of a little picture choices is say shooting the explosive tank under the raving krogen. It's a renegade choice, paragon shep wants to learn more about the situation and maybe try to talk him down (don't remember if you get a dialog wheel before the combat starts or not). Renegade shep doesn't care, he just wants to get the mission done.



Generally for little picture stuff if there's any difference it's that paragon shep gets a few extra cameos or e-mails while renegade shep gets slightly easier combats. There's no real right or wrong here, since it's not very important - it's just how your shep gets things done.



Then there's big picture stuff. Paragon shep wants all the races of the galaxy to work together while renegade shep wants human dominance. So paragon shep saves the queen and she (presumably) helps along with everyone else in ME3. Renegade shep kills the queen, removing one more obstacle to human dominance. Paragon shep discourages a quarian/geth war and maybe they both help out - renegade shep encourages the war so they are both weakened and can't oppose humanity's rise to power.



The game is not about making the right choice, it's about which kind of shepherd you want to be. Paragon hero shep who saves the day and gets everyone to work together, or badass renegade shep who stomps on everyone in his way and puts humans on the top?



The problem is if you want to vary from either one of those (say be direct action shep who wants galactic unity) - which is why I said blame bioware's stupid, stupid P/R system which forces you to mindlessly click the top or bottom choice instead of roleplaying the shep you want.

[Ieldra]

BurnedToast wrote...
Then there's big picture stuff. Paragon shep wants all the races of the galaxy to work together while renegade shep wants human dominance.

Actually, no. When I make those choices I make them not because I want human dominance, but because I think it is the strategically better decision, or that there is a lower risk to future events that way. As I said, these decisions are a gamble.

It goes like this:
My main goal is to defeat the Reapers. I save the Rachni queen and have two possible outcomes: an additional ally or an additional enemy. If it turns out to be an additional ally, then it's good I made that decision. If it turns out to be an additional enemy, then the Renegade choice would have been better.
Come ME2, and we see - the Rachni queen will most likely be an ally. The Paragons have won their bet and the Renegades have lost.

Now if we have a set of those decisions betting on the future, and in all of them the Paragon bets are winning bets, then there's something wrong with the universe.

A Renegade mindset does not imply a specific political goal. We *all* want one thing first and foremost: to defeat the Reapers. The difference lies in how.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2011 - 11:02 .

[Commander Kurt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It goes like this:
My main goal is to defeat the Reapers. I save the Rachni queen and have two possible outcomes: an additional ally or an additional enemy. If it turns out to be an additional ally, then it's good I made that decision. If it turns out to be an additional enemy, then the Renegade choice would have been better.
Come ME2, and we see - the Rachni queen will most likely be an ally. The Paragons have won their bet and the Renegades have lost.

Now if we have a set of those decisions betting on the future, and in all of them the Paragon bets are winning bets, then there's something wrong with the universe.

Okay, I think I get your point. But you're only seeing the paragon option as a risk, which is half-assed (for lack of a better word, no disrespect intended).

If you're Paragon, you're betting that the Rachni won't betray you. And chances are you will win that bet.
If you're Renegade, you're betting that you won't need the Rachni. And chances are just as good you will win that bet.

[Ieldra]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

It goes like this:
My main goal is to defeat the Reapers. I save the Rachni queen and have two possible outcomes: an additional ally or an additional enemy. If it turns out to be an additional ally, then it's good I made that decision. If it turns out to be an additional enemy, then the Renegade choice would have been better.
Come ME2, and we see - the Rachni queen will most likely be an ally. The Paragons have won their bet and the Renegades have lost.

Now if we have a set of those decisions betting on the future, and in all of them the Paragon bets are winning bets, then there's something wrong with the universe.

Okay, I think I get your point. But you're only seeing the paragon option as a risk, which is half-assed (for lack of a better word, no disrespect intended).

If you're Paragon, you're betting that the Rachni won't betray you. And chances are you will win that bet.
If you're Renegade, you're betting that you won't need the Rachni. And chances are just as good you will win that bet.

Yeah, we won't need them, but the fight will be harder for it. That's a net disadvantage. Note that "Defeat the Reapers" is the goal in question here. Nothing else matters, not human dominance vs. co-operation, not Cerberus. They're side issues.

[AkiKishi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah, we won't need them, but the fight will be harder for it. That's a net disadvantage. Note that "Defeat the Reapers" is the goal in question here. Nothing else matters, not human dominance vs. co-operation, not Cerberus. They're side issues.

But that no different to the Renegade interupts. You don't need them , but it makes the fight harder if you don't use them.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 14 février 2011 - 11:31 .

[BurnedToast]

Except renegade shep DOES want human dominance (regardless of why YOU picked it). You pick renegade choices, you end up with an all human council, little galactic opposition to humanity, a base full of powerful technology in the hands of a radical pro-human terrorist group, and a shep who argues for humanity and against aliens at practically every dialog wheel.



Don't try and make the game into something it's not. It's not about gambling at all - you will win (or have the option to win) ME3 no matter what. There's no right choices or wrong choices.

[Commander Kurt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah, we won't need them, but the fight will be harder for it. That's a net disadvantage. Note that "Defeat the Reapers" is the goal in question here. Nothing else matters, not human dominance vs. co-operation, not Cerberus. They're side issues.

Will it? How do you know? For whom, you as a player or the Human Forces? How much harder?

Will it be like choosing to save the DA and losing alot of human lives for it, or like choosing not to interrupt a krogan warlord and possibly getting your ass kicked?

[Ieldra]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah, we won't need them, but the fight will be harder for it. That's a net disadvantage. Note that "Defeat the Reapers" is the goal in question here. Nothing else matters, not human dominance vs. co-operation, not Cerberus. They're side issues.

Will it? How do you know? For whom, you as a player or the Human Forces? How much harder?

Will it be like choosing to save the DA and losing alot of human lives for it, or like choosing not to interrupt a krogan warlord and possibly getting your ass kicked?

I'm talking about the big picture here. I don't care one whit how easy or difficult the game is for me as a player, combat-wise, as long as I can set the difficulty. Yes, I think it could be like losing a lot more human lives - even planets or star systems - to the Reapers before we're done with them.
And of course I don't know. But if we have allies in one scenario, and no allies in the other, I think it's reasonable to assume the fight will be harder in the latter scenario.

It's all Bioware's choice. They chose to make the Rachni allies, and that's very much OK. But for a balance, it's necessary the "Paragon bet" doesn't pay off in all main plot decisions.

All that assuming, of course, that having allies or not will be significant at all.  

[CroGamer002]

DPSSOC wrote...


To illustrate:
Sparing the Rachni
- Renegade
Gain - Eliminate potential threat
Cost - Miss out on POSSIBLE future ally
- Paragon
Gain - POSSIBLE Future ally
Cost - Nothing if not a threat, Council races and especially Krogans won't be very welcomed about Rachni return

Saving the Council
- Renegade
Gain - Face Sovereign at full strength
Cost - inter-species tension
- Paragon
Gain - Inter-species unity
Cost - Nothing Alliance fleet still didn't recover from Sovereign