71 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

Paragon choices often involve taking leaps of faith.  You have faith the fleet can stop Sovereign and save the Council.  You have faith the rachni queen won't betray you.  You have faith releasing Balak won't lead to more atrocities.

However, it seems unsatisfying, somehow, to arbitrarily punish the Paragons for these choices.  If saving the Ascension just leads to a big GAME OVER screen, why would anybody do it?  Why put in that option if it's not really an option?  That's why I think BioWare have taken the right choice by not having the leaps of faith punished too often.  Paragons want to play a game, not get a morality lesson from the devs.

That said, it's a bit unsatisfying to know that no harm will ever come to you for taking these leaps of faith.  Choosing blue is always the optimal solution.  ("Save the Citadel or save the Council?  Hmm.  I know...let's save both!")

However, I had an idea of an interesting way they could have made it work.

What if each Paragon leap of faith had a % chance of being faulty?  Not a high one.  But what if 1% or 5% of the time, saving the Ascension did lead to a Critical Mission Failure?  What if one in a hundred times, ME2 didn't generate the gushing asari with a polite message from the Queen, but instead news reports of hundreds of ships going missing in the rachni's new turf?  What if in 1% of playthroughs, not shooting Wrex in time led to him killing Shepard on the beach?

Ideally the bad outcomes would be calculated at the start of each new game, so you couldn't just reload until you got it right.  It could even be an optional setting, so people who don't want the chance of harsh outcomes could turn them off.

I think this approach might have made playing Paragon more tense and satisfying, and playing Renegade more justifiable.  Obviously it's academic at this point, but given the number of Paragon/Renegade arguments in the forum I thought others might be interested in weighing in on the idea.

[Gentleman Moogle]

Interesting idea, but completely impractical given the amount of Huge Choices™ we make over the course of the first two games. Entire new sections would have to be programmed in on the slight chance that the Rachni went rogue rather than wound up as good guys, or whatever other decisions you might make. The game would become ridiculously bloated or annoyingly linear, depending on whether the developers wanted to ensure freedom-of-choice still existed or if they'd just give you minor surface-level choices that change and affect absolutely nothing.

It'd also ****** the players off something awful. Many of us can barely deal with the Virmire choice as we feel it was too ham-handed and don't like losing our party members. If somebody introduced random "Death Button" chance into our games? We get this whole way, and suddenly we're f*cked over because a RANDOM CHANCE statistic determined we'd get f*cked over?

Yeahno.

[Seboist]

I'd prefer a "choose your poison" system for the choices that Shep makes like for instance with the Collector Base you'd have alternate missions:

Saved the base: Shep has to defend it from a Reaper or Council attack.

Destroyed the base: Shep would have a mission where he's under attack from Cerberus operatives.

[NaruxNarusegawa]

Just on a personal note, i feel like Renegades are punished not Paragons. Like you said OP Paragon options are "have your cake and eat it too" choices. Whereas Renegade is just a jerk who won't have many allies at the final battle of ME3. (That's just my opinion of course.)

[applehug]

The whole Rachni thing hasn't even fully played out yet. For all we know they might become hostile again after you stop the Reapers.

[Yarne]

While I agree with you that paragon outcomes are often too ideal, arbitrarily punishing players would quickly make the game tedious. It's just harsh and ungratifying to have your character's progress rest entirely on the whims of a pseudo-random number generator e.g.

Shepard: Time to die, reapers.
Random number generator: Nope.
Reapers proceed to destroy entire galaxy.

At which point I would probably uninstall the game.

[KawaiiKatie]

"It wouldn't be the high road if it was easy."

Shepard said that to Jacob in ME2. But it wasn't until after Arrival that the quote finally made sense to me.

I mean, yes, a lot of the time it seems like it would be easier just to go Renegade and kill everyone who looks at you the wrong way. It would be so easy to sacrafice thousands of lives and handwave it with "but I just delayed a Reaper invasion." So many times, the Mass Effect series makes me feel like it would be better to take the easy street. But then it wouldn't be the high road any more.

EDIT: The point I was trying to make is, the Mass Effect series already punishes Paragons, because a lot of the time, the choice doesn't really matter. You try to do the good thing, but people still see you as just a "Cerberus Officer" or whathave you, and at the end of the day, the only thanks you get is the occasional email. So yeah, it would be way easier (and probably more fun) to be a Renegade, but I would never take that path.

Modifié par KawaiiKatie, 05 avril 2011 - 09:46 .

[GuardianAngel470]

applehug wrote...

The whole Rachni thing hasn't even fully played out yet. For all we know they might become hostile again after you stop the Reapers.

Yeah, I always found that asari really suspicious...

[Wulfram]

Shouldn't renegades get "punished" for their randomly killing people, disrespecting the rulers of the galaxy and taking a leaps of faith with Cerberus?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I've thought long and hard about this, and the Paragon and Renegade choices, and their associated consequences, are best viewed in the context of an individual Shepard's story.

P!Shep is Batman. R!Shep is the Punisher. The common thread is that they're both heroes. They're both going to end up winning, in the end.

The Batman metaphor is really important when looking at Paragon decisions. Batman has decided that he can defeat crime without ever using a gun. Sure, there are times when using a gun would be completely rational, but if he  needed a gun to win, he wouldn't be Batman.

The Punisher, in contrast, has decided that he will fight crime using all the guns, talking about them lovingly, and crushing anyone who gets in his way. And for him, a lot of his villains really need killing with guns. If he didn't shoot these people in the face, he would be doing it wrong.

Two men make opposite decisions, and they're both right. It's Batman's dedication to a personal code of honor that keeps him from becoming a killer himself, whereas the Punisher's dedication to murdering criminals keeps the maximum number of innocent people safe for the longest period of time.

The best way to "punish" Paragon/Renegade decisions is to make each decision have a negative consequence... but a negative consequence that that particular side considers better than the alternative. My go-to, predictive example is this: what if blowing up the collector base results in humans taking bigger casualties than any other race, but stronger galactic unity at the end of the game, whereas keeping the base makes humanity stronger, but also makes them hated by all the other races. For Paragons, sacrificing humanity's strength for galactic unity is an acceptable deal. For Renegades, sacrificing galactic goodwill for human dominance works for them. Both get "punished" for their actions, but they get punished in the way they were aiming for.

I'd like to see more "lawl Renegade interrupt" things that are rewarded with no drawbacks - like stabbing that guy in the back on Garrus's mission. That was the second time I was ever tempted by a renegade action, and the first time I actually took one without thinking. And then there were no negative consequences! It was great.

Basically, I think Renegade actions should directly benefit Shepard (monetarily and otherwise) a lot more than Paragon actions. It would be amusing if Paragon characters were scraping for currency, while Renegades were buying fish on Illium just to watch 'em die. For instance, the reward for selling legion should be 999,999 creds, rather than 50,000. Furthermore, renegade options should benefit humanity in a more direct and visible fashion. Paragon actions should involve a lot of being poor and not taking rewards from people who can't afford it, but also a lot of goodwill from the other races of the galaxy. Results should often be almost ast transparent as BDtS - if you do it the Paragon way, you save innocent lives directly. If you play Renegade, some innocents die, but you get your target.

They should both get what they value, with huge penalties to the things they value less. That's the best idea I've been able to come up with so far, anyway.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 avril 2011 - 09:58 .

[NaruxNarusegawa]

Wulfram wrote...

Shouldn't renegades get "punished" for their randomly killing people, disrespecting the rulers of the galaxy and taking a leaps of faith with Cerberus?

Absolutely. Ideally there should always be a consequance for our actions (whether good or bad).

[CroGamer002]

[Akizora]

No...I would rather having saved the council would resulted in Andersons death and going directly for the citadel results in him surviving. Stuff like that makes a lot more sense since it deals with consequences that doesn't end your game, it's not punishment - not really.

We already know what being renegade and letting the council die does, it makes all species hate humanity and think of us as opportunistic bastards that manuever ourselves into positions of power.

Saving the rachni could result in their immediate help vs the reapers, but long term instability of several sectors. Killing them could result in no help, which means more deaths but no long term instability.

Destroying the collector base results in less defensive technology against the reaper attacks but means that Cerberus will not be able to maneuver themselves into power and more species are likely to trust you and help you. Keeping it will result in more distrust but Cerberus will have more power so you might not need those particular species to defend earth, still in the long term humanity will be seen as tyrants.

[Chuvvy]

applehug wrote...

The whole Rachni thing hasn't even fully played out yet. For all we know they might become hostile again after you stop the Reapers.

To be honest, I'd rather have another war with the Rachni, than have less allies and possibly lose to the reapers.

Modifié par Slidell505, 05 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[InvincibleHero]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've thought long and hard about this, and the Paragon and Renegade choices, and their associated consequences, are best viewed in the context of an individual Shepard's story.

P!Shep is Batman. R!Shep is the Punisher. The common thread is that they're both heroes. They're both going to end up winning, in the end.

The Batman metaphor is really important when looking at Paragon decisions. Batman has decided that he can defeat crime without ever using a gun. Sure, there are times when using a gun would be completely rational, but if he  needed a gun to win, he wouldn't be Batman.

The Punisher, in contrast, has decided that he will fight crime using all the guns, talking about them lovingly, and crushing anyone who gets in his way. And for him, a lot of his villains really need killing with guns. If he didn't shoot these people in the face, he would be doing it wrong.

Two men make opposite decisions, and they're both right. It's Batman's dedication to a personal code of honor that keeps him from becoming a killer himself, whereas the Punisher's dedication to murdering criminals keeps the maximum number of innocent people safe for the longest period of time.

The best way to "punish" Paragon/Renegade decisions is to make each decision have a negative consequence... but a negative consequence that that particular side considers better than the alternative. My go-to, predictive example is this: what if blowing up the collector base results in humans taking bigger casualties than any other race, but stronger galactic unity at the end of the game, whereas keeping the base makes humanity stronger, but also makes them hated by all the other races. For Paragons, sacrificing humanity's strength for galactic unity is an acceptable deal. For Renegades, sacrificing galactic goodwill for human dominance works for them. Both get "punished" for their actions, but they get punished in the way they were aiming for.

I'd like to see more "lawl Renegade interrupt" things that are rewarded with no drawbacks - like stabbing that guy in the back on Garrus's mission. That was the second time I was ever tempted by a renegade action, and the first time I actually took one without thinking. And then there were no negative consequences! It was great.

Basically, I think Renegade actions should directly benefit Shepard (monetarily and otherwise) a lot more than Paragon actions. It would be amusing if Paragon characters were scraping for currency, while Renegades were buying fish on Illium just to watch 'em die. For instance, the reward for selling legion should be 999,999 creds, rather than 50,000. Furthermore, renegade options should benefit humanity in a more direct and visible fashion. Paragon actions should involve a lot of being poor and not taking rewards from people who can't afford it, but also a lot of goodwill from the other races of the galaxy. Results should often be almost ast transparent as BDtS - if you do it the Paragon way, you save innocent lives directly. If you play Renegade, some innocents die, but you get your target.

They should both get what they value, with huge penalties to the things they value less. That's the best idea I've been able to come up with so far, anyway.

I like what you said but Batman is no paragon. Superman is.  BM does what it takes to get the job done (renegade anyone). If Superman goes rogue he will take his best friend out with kryptonite. he has contingency plans for each and every hero going bad. Sure he has a moral code and a no-kill being the foundation but there is a lot of room in there for his law breaking, and he is noble for the sacrifice he is willing to make to help others.

Punisher has no morals except to kill the bad guys. Sure he wants to minimize collateral damage but it's black and white. If he puts crosshairs on you he will try to kill you. Not really a hero just someone that is not quite rational. If he has to be more evil than the bad guys he will do it.

Most games just gloss over consequences when today they can do so much more. It irks me when you can rob someone blind and they just stand there. Worse though is the unarmed and unarmored person trying to stop PC from doing it. What makes sense wait till they leave and sick the town guard on them. Wanted posters for murdering guards etc etc.

[Reiella]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Paragon choices often involve taking leaps of faith.  You have faith the fleet can stop Sovereign and save the Council.  You have faith the rachni queen won't betray you.  You have faith releasing Balak won't lead to more atrocities.

However, it seems unsatisfying, somehow, to arbitrarily punish the Paragons for these choices.  If saving the Ascension just leads to a big GAME OVER screen, why would anybody do it?  Why put in that option if it's not really an option?  That's why I think BioWare have taken the right choice by not having the leaps of faith punished too often.  Paragons want to play a game, not get a morality lesson from the devs.

That said, it's a bit unsatisfying to know that no harm will ever come to you for taking these leaps of faith.  Choosing blue is always the optimal solution.  ("Save the Citadel or save the Council?  Hmm.  I know...let's save both!")

However, I had an idea of an interesting way they could have made it work.

What if each Paragon leap of faith had a % chance of being faulty?  Not a high one.  But what if 1% or 5% of the time, saving the Ascension did lead to a Critical Mission Failure?  What if one in a hundred times, ME2 didn't generate the gushing asari with a polite message from the Queen, but instead news reports of hundreds of ships going missing in the rachni's new turf?  What if in 1% of playthroughs, not shooting Wrex in time led to him killing Shepard on the beach?

Ideally the bad outcomes would be calculated at the start of each new game, so you couldn't just reload until you got it right.  It could even be an optional setting, so people who don't want the chance of harsh outcomes could turn them off.

I think this approach might have made playing Paragon more tense and satisfying, and playing Renegade more justifiable.  Obviously it's academic at this point, but given the number of Paragon/Renegade arguments in the forum I thought others might be interested in weighing in on the idea.

In ME2, there was a Paragon decision with a fairly meaningless 'punishment', or situation where the Paragon turned out wrong at least.  The Merc that you can 'give a second chance to' who lies through her teeth about not actually killing anyone.

Perhaps more incidents such as that, but again, there is the problem that they are 'minor events' and don't really matter all that much.

[Akizora]

Reiella wrote...
In ME2, there was a Paragon decision with a fairly meaningless 'punishment', or situation where the Paragon turned out wrong at least.  The Merc that you can 'give a second chance to' who lies through her teeth about not actually killing anyone.

Perhaps more incidents such as that, but again, there is the problem that they are 'minor events' and don't really matter all that much.

Well if you had read about Eclipse prior to encountering her, you would already know that she is a murderer as the entrance exam is executing someone...Although I don't see why it had to be renegade to pull your gun when she reaches for hers.

[I_pity_the_fool]

There's that bit at the beginning of Miranda's loyalty mission where not taking a renegade interrupt leads to you having to fight many more eclipse mercs. Taking the paragon path in Zaeed's loyalty mission might lead to you not getting his loyalty, whereas the Renegade always does.

I always thought it was odd that giving the merc medigel on Grunt's mission and the Salarian medigel on Thane's didn't actually use up any of your own supply.

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

What if each Paragon leap of faith had a % chance of being faulty?  Not a high one.  But what if 1% or 5% of the time, saving the Ascension did lead to a Critical Mission Failure?  What if one in a hundred times, ME2 didn't generate the gushing asari with a polite message from the Queen, but instead news reports of hundreds of ships going missing in the rachni's new turf?  What if in 1% of playthroughs, not shooting Wrex in time led to him killing Shepard on the beach?

Ideally the bad outcomes would be calculated at the start of each new game, so you couldn't just reload until you got it right.  It could even be an optional setting, so people who don't want the chance of harsh outcomes could turn them off.

I think this approach might have made playing Paragon more tense and satisfying, and playing Renegade more justifiable.  Obviously it's academic at this point, but given the number of Paragon/Renegade arguments in the forum I thought others might be interested in weighing in on the idea.

The biggest obstacle is that no one wants to play a game for 60 hours to find out they can't choose. Pre-disqualified choices are an anathema.


In most cases, I agree with GeekGirl: costs should be balanced and proportional on both sides. In various others, however, I'd support Arrival's subversion of choice and let people react to your broadcast intent, and not your results which can't be recognized well in a sequel due to toomuch variation.

To clarify with an example: ME1's Council decision. If you don't help the Council, all is the same. Choosing to help the Council, however, gets the player those 25 Paragon Points and are shown a clip scene of the Destiny Ascension dying anyway. Whatever you did, they were screwed: however, come ME2 the galaxy either blames Humanity for the loss of the Council (Renegade), or praises Humanity for selflessly trying to at their own cost (Paragon).

In a way, same result, but much simpler for planning the sequel: there is no trouble with one playthrough having the Old Council and one not seeing a New Council because now the Old Council is removed as a variable. Galactic tone changes, content doesn't, everyone gets that reward/cost they were willing to accept.


Or, alternatively, Feros: if you use the gas grenades, the controlled Colonists you paralyzed in the first assault stream down to attack you during the Thorian fight, where you must kill them regardless. Colony destroyed (or not) based on the other factors, but more importantly people remember to what extent Shepard went: was killing the first choice, or the last?


Choices that 'make a difference' are only good in so much that those differences can be properly acknowledged later on in a balanced way.

[Sidac]

I for one would love if one of the "leaps of faith" that we paragons did would come back to haunt us. Like the rachni queen turning on us! OMG I WANT THAT NAO!!!

[kalpain]

Akizora wrote...

Reiella wrote...
In ME2, there was a Paragon decision with a fairly meaningless 'punishment', or situation where the Paragon turned out wrong at least.  The Merc that you can 'give a second chance to' who lies through her teeth about not actually killing anyone.

Perhaps more incidents such as that, but again, there is the problem that they are 'minor events' and don't really matter all that much.

Well if you had read about Eclipse prior to encountering her, you would already know that she is a murderer as the entrance exam is executing someone...Although I don't see why it had to be renegade to pull your gun when she reaches for hers.

I did one play through where I didn't pull my gun on her.  She does not immediately fire and you basically talk her down and you can try to get more info from her about the mission.  She desn't actually anything very useful to say but eventually you let her go and she runs off.  Only to discover soon after that she did kill the volus.  I suspect she will appear again in ME3.  If I had to guess its probably Renegade to just gun her down when she grabs her gun because 3 on 1 isn't a fair fight.

[Bamboozalist]

Why not punish/reward both?

[Recon Member]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Why not punish/reward both?

Nah. Punish paragon, reward renegade

[Abispa]

I'm curious to see just how much the rachni choice will affect ME3. After all, don't PS3 players automatically have that choice made for them? If anything, there will probably still be an enlist or dominate the rachni mission in the third game, with your XBox exclusive choice reflected by only some extra lines and rachni queen cameo.