71 réponses à ce sujet

[Manic Sheep]

No, percentage based results like that never work well and just ****** allot people off, myself included. We should be trying to reduce the amount of things dependent on dice rolls. Percentage based outcomes is often just frustrating and never satisfying. What I think they should be trying to do (and may in fact be doing) is have a mix of positives or negatives for both paragon and renegade with maybe a few choices that are one sided (but they would need to make sure it and equal number of para and ren choices that have only good/bad outcomes). For example, Save the destiny ascension? That choice seemed in favour of paragon because the amount of people on the DA was more than you had lost if you saved them and humans are not trusted. Had the human fleet taken heavy looses to save the DA it wouldn’t seem so bad. (although that said since the Turians are increasing their fleet in retaliation, you never know it might actually help you in ME3). We don’t know how the rachni thing will work out, she says she’s peaceful but is she? or is she just building an army first? What if they get indoctrinated again? Since their a hive mind if the queen gets indoctrinated the reapers may have the whole colony Hell maybe they don’t even need to get to the queen to indoctrinate her. We don’t know. Maybe she will help you but it will also cause problems with your other allies. We won’t know if they have been balancing it until we see how things work out in ME3.

[Manic Sheep]

Abispa wrote...

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.

No thats a choice in the comic.

[AK404]

Paragon choices also involve faith in the person you're trusting, and like Ironfoundersson, the in-game mechanic seems to be that for the most part, your trust is well-placed.

A lot of characters have chances to screw over Shepard - Charn, Blake, the rachni queen, Fist, Shiala, Jeong, Elnora, the geth, Udina, and so on - but for the most part, the only characters who intentionally betray his trust are Udina and Elnora.  Paragon choices for either of those characters always turn out for the worst; in my games, I never trust Udina.

On the other hand, some paragon choices are already 'lawful stupid,' as some people have found.  For example, a fully paragon character would think the genophage akin to full-fledged genocide because all life is precious (even the krogan, whose population levels led to the krogan rebellions), while a renegade character would think the genophage is probably the best way to keep the krogan population in check, not because of xenophobia, but because it's already been shown exactly what the krogan plans to do with all that precious life. (according to the shaman, they plan to keep on destroying themselves!)

Another example is the quarian-geth conflict, where in ME1, paragon choices shifted towards supporting the quarians, but in ME2, paragon choices shift to a more balanced choice.

Anyway, all it would really take is one or two Paragon choices gone bad in the long run: nothing serious (or galaxy-shattering) like the rachni causing another war, or your (human) love interest from ME1 finding someone else (and neglecting to tell you), but little things like Heather Blake secretly running a crime ring under her social work, Charn making raids on human colonies while you were KIA, or ExoGeni screwing over the colony at Feros and leaving Shiala to hold the bag.

[M-Sinistrari]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The problem with renegade is it often means a lack of content. A renegade should get just as much content, but that extra content for a "bad renegade choice" should be something that entertains the player but hinders Shepard.

That's more a problem of the writing not quite being consistant.  To me a Renegade's more about taking the quicker route to a solution, but often in game it seems more like being a sociopath.  I can see being rude or threatening, quicker to pull a gun to threaten as well as use when bluff's called, and even being underhanded like with the Cathka interrupt as all appropriately renegade choices, but something like letting the refinery workers die to go after Vido comes across more like mass murder to me.

[Reiella]

M-Sinistrari wrote...

That's more a problem of the writing not quite being consistant.  To me a Renegade's more about taking the quicker route to a solution, but often in game it seems more like being a sociopath.  I can see being rude or threatening, quicker to pull a gun to threaten as well as use when bluff's called, and even being underhanded like with the Cathka interrupt as all appropriately renegade choices, but something like letting the refinery workers die to go after Vido comes across more like mass murder to me.

I think it's kinda awkward in ME personally.  For me, it's hard to accept a "by any means necessary" attitude, when the means that are being pursued aren't necessary.

It's just hard to write a story that's good for an anti-hero and a hero both at the same time.

[Kingthlayer]

Going back to the Sovereign decision, the best way to have handled that imo for paragons would have been for all the humans you sacrificed to save 3 people, have just one of those humans be someone in the story instead of just a faceless nobody.

What if Hackett died saving the DA, or Joker, or hell even Verner(who joined the alliance after his conversation with Shepard), if just one person was of any importance to the story it would have actually been a decision.

I would bet that if the Rachni betray you in ME3, all they will do is kill an alliance ship with nobody on it. They won't actually kill anyone important. Where as if the Collector base turns out to be a bad decision, it's going to cost Renegade players something important. Because paragon>Renegade according to BioWare.

[Lunatic LK47]

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.

Nah, they'd be hostile *DURING* the Reaper invasion. They got indoctrinated before, remember?

[Jzadek72]

I play a paragon, and I say... YES! The point of renegade is sacrificing morality for the greater good. The point of paragon is to possibly take greater losses, but to not lose humanity. Both are rendered pointless without consequence. Of course, despite asking for consequences to decisions, I find many people hate it when it actually happens, so this is unlikely to be implemented.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

Of course, we don't know what ME3 will pose.

Perhaps the Collector Base will be crucial to an easier defeat vs. the Reapers.
Perhaps the Rachni will go rogue.
Perhaps the heretics backfire and the true geth become brainwashed instead.

Etc etc etc.

[Golden Owl]

Maybe I haven't played enough games to know how these things generally work...what I do know is my 1st play through's on ME1 and ME2 had me on edge, twisting and turning over the choices I was making (I play a paragon), I spent both games on tender hooks waiting for these decisions to turn around and bite me in the a**....For ME3, yes, I do expect some of my decisions to do just that, I would be surprised if they don't, off the top of my head I expect Rana Thanoptis to be a problem, how big a problem, I don't know, it would depend on who she's working for, it could be big.

[Reiella]

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

Going back to the Sovereign decision, the best way to have handled that imo for paragons would have been for all the humans you sacrificed to save 3 people, have just one of those humans be someone in the story instead of just a faceless nobody.

What if Hackett died saving the DA, or Joker, or hell even Verner(who joined the alliance after his conversation with Shepard), if just one person was of any importance to the story it would have actually been a decision.

I would bet that if the Rachni betray you in ME3, all they will do is kill an alliance ship with nobody on it. They won't actually kill anyone important. Where as if the Collector base turns out to be a bad decision, it's going to cost Renegade players something important. Because paragon>Renegade according to BioWare.

Not that it's really relevant to this discussion, but the issue with saving the Destiny Ascension in ME1 is better defined as 'Save the Destiny Ascension' not 'Save the Councilors'.  At the very least, the Destiny Ascension had it's crew complement as well.  And there is fair reason to suspect additional civilian presence aboard [although that's 'in the air'].

[santaclausemoreau]

Either way, the series will end with the reapers being defeated. Paragon and renegade will lead to equal chance of success. There really is no reason to punish one side or the other.

[Arijharn]

I totally disagree with the random variable dictating the chance of success with a paragon/renegade decision, as while I like chaotic elements, I don't like them to be that chaotic.

A good example of a paragon/renegade type decision I'd like to see is the whole Harrowment/Bhelen choice during origins. In addition, I also liked the 'different' rewards for going paragon or renegade during Zaeed's loyalty, although I still think leaving the workers to die is pretty... extreme (which was the point I suppose). No Paragon decision though made me as 'torn up' about making it though, which I think is a bit of an imbalance.

[Nashiktal]

Both Paragon and Renegade should be viable. The differences between the two should be in the differing situations that follow later in the game.

Flavor, more than bonus if you will.

[ADLegend21]

Oh look this thread again.

[Sajuro]

I think both should be punished equally

[lovgreno]

Neither paragons nor renegades should be "punished" for anything. Those who took some effort to do things better however, should be rewarded. But this have nothing to do with paragon or renegade.

[PrinceLionheart]

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?

No, becasue renegades make all the "hard decisions" and suffer by getting less emails. Theoritically speaking, isn't putting trust in the Illusive Man with the reaper tech "a leap of faith" and therefore shouldn't Renegades also suffer for the decision? 

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 06 avril 2011 - 03:35 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

It bothers me how so many on here, mostly paragons, invest too much into their respective moralities, eventually only making those decisions for the sake of being paragon or renegade. Also, I seem to get the impression that they - once again mostly paragons - are not so keen on, as Saphra put it, accepting the consequences if they're wrong. Ergo, these people seem willing enough (obsessed, if you will) to go back to square one in the series just because one choice they made didn't have the outcome they desired, metagaming it to have a "positive" one.

Personally, I don't really allow myself to get restricted by either bar and just make choices based on what I feel is the right choice at the time, looking at what has happened up to that point and what is likely to happen afterwards; "better safe than sorry" being one of my guidelines in the series. Par example; I trusted neither the Rachni Queen nor the Illusive Man, so I stuck it to them both. Shiala, however, I trusted and was thus allowed to live. The Council both had it coming and got stuck in a situation where I'd either sacrifice them or the entire galaxy.

I honestly don't and won't care if the Rachni will turn out to stay true to their word, sacrificing their numbers to save humans or whatever. Nor would I, from a metagaming perspective, go back on my decision to let Shiala live in the first game if she'll turn on me in the series finale. Why? Because what the others invest in non-significant bars, I invest in the choices themselves and the intentions behind them.

As for the Council choice, there is no doubt in my mind that they will remain to be ineffective, while a schemer like TIM is never to be trusted. However, I only see the Renegade Collector Base choice backfire if one assumes he won't use the technology to humanity's - and specifically humanity's - advantage; a pro-Cerberus player has little to lose in trusting TIM.

[Sturmwulfe]

I'd rather see something like by the end of Mass Effect 3 your choices will end up making the ultimate difference by what you decided to do throughout the game, kind of like how choosing to help Wrex by finding his family armour has a better chance of him standing down on Virmire, things like that really made the first game what it was, with a lot of surprises and hard calls.

I wouldn't say Paragons and Renegades are needlessly punished, they both have their time and place in various situations, I find that people who try to take a middle, compromising road are the ones who suffer because they may lose squad mates or not have options to avoid fights or what have you because they played the game either extremely Paragon or Renegade to max out their meters... it kind of discourages you from making the choice that you as a person, or your character, would have made normally. I know on my first couple play throughs, I picked Paragon choices more to try and max out my bar so I'd always have the best choices later. The game experience would have been more fulfilling if there was a middle ground approach as well, where you didn't necessarily need to have your Paragon or Renegade meters maxed out for a desirable outcome, but rather achieved it through your own choices and actions over time.

[thatguy212]

They could do something like the rachni will indoctrinated again unless you do X

[Nathan Redgrave]

Abispa wrote...

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.

Actually, the rachni queen choice is one of the ones you can make in the interactive comic the PS3 version gets via Cerberus Network. (See this video for proof.)

[Abispa]

Thanks you, PS3 players, for setting me straight. I still believe that no matter what your decision was with the rachni queen, there will still be a persuade or dominate the rachni mission in the third game where your choice in ME1 or the comic was largely cosmetic, like whether or not you killed Wrex.

Modifié par Abispa, 06 avril 2011 - 05:09 .