71 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

Abispa wrote...

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.

Unlikely. If the rachni queen was killed, the only rachni in existence are the crazy insane ones, and although there's evidence in ME1 to suggest that there are yet more of them that were shipped off-world, they're still there crazy insane ones. There's no talking to them, that's why the rachni queen insisted they had to be put down.

At any rate, consider the possibility that ME3's choices may actually seem less cosmetic than ME2's because BioWare may not be planning for a sequel this time. (No sequel means no save imports, no save imports means they can be as convoluted as they damn well please without having to worry about dropping the ball in the next game.)

[KevShep]

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.

Going Renegade is... ALSO ... taking a leap of faith, not just paragon! I mean what do you really know about Cerberus? Cerberus and the Reapers live by the same moto..."the ends justify the means", and...ALSO... what if Cerberus is unknowingly working for the Reapers? Cerberus IS trying to make a hybrid of organic and synthetic AI (project overlord-collecter base), I mean givin that they could be trying to build a human controled reaper. The reapers could be using Cerberus to fix whats wrong with them! You just dont know!

[Arijharn]

KevShep wrote...
Going Renegade is... ALSO ... taking a leap of faith, not just paragon! I mean what do you really know about Cerberus? Cerberus and the Reapers live by the same moto..."the ends justify the means", and...ALSO... what if Cerberus is unknowingly working for the Reapers? Cerberus IS trying to make a hybrid of organic and synthetic AI (project overlord-collecter base), I mean givin that they could be trying to build a human controled reaper. The reapers could be using Cerberus to fix whats wrong with them! You just dont know!

I wouldn't dismiss or even gainsay that working for Cerberus doesn't involve a certain amount of risk, but not for the reasons you've listed.

How do the Reapers live by 'the ends justify the means' exactly? They're completely alien. Applying our concept of morality upon them is plain nonsensical, it's like trying to force ants to live by our society's laws really. The Turians, the Asari are alien but not that alien and even the Geth are less 'alien' than the Reapers. 

It also doesn't make sense for the Reapers to attempt to subtly influence Cerberus into siding with them when Cerberus actively takes steps to disrupt Reaper operations (re-capturing Shephard's body, resurrecting the one person who has successfully fought against them, tasking said person with the destruction of their forward teams (aka; the Collectors and the actions they would be able to undertake when the Reapers actually arrive), gain increased access to the Mass Relay network and destroying/capturing their main facility that just happens to be constructing a new Reaper).

I don't mean to be rude, but have you even thought about what you're saying? How do any of these events, if we are to assume that your theory is correct, helps indirectly or directly, the Reapers themselves?

[Reiella]

Arijharn wrote...

I wouldn't dismiss or even gainsay that working for Cerberus doesn't involve a certain amount of risk, but not for the reasons you've listed.

How do the Reapers live by 'the ends justify the means' exactly? They're completely alien. Applying our concept of morality upon them is plain nonsensical, it's like trying to force ants to live by our society's laws really. The Turians, the Asari are alien but not that alien and even the Geth are less 'alien' than the Reapers. 

It also doesn't make sense for the Reapers to attempt to subtly influence Cerberus into siding with them when Cerberus actively takes steps to disrupt Reaper operations (re-capturing Shephard's body, resurrecting the one person who has successfully fought against them, tasking said person with the destruction of their forward teams (aka; the Collectors and the actions they would be able to undertake when the Reapers actually arrive), gain increased access to the Mass Relay network and destroying/capturing their main facility that just happens to be constructing a new Reaper).

I don't mean to be rude, but have you even thought about what you're saying? How do any of these events, if we are to assume that your theory is correct, helps indirectly or directly, the Reapers themselves?

Xanatos gambits...  Hopefully not, because they are kind of annoying when it's not Xanatos, but.

[Vanaer]

Paragons shouldn't be punished, but I do think some of their choices should backfire. For example, saving the Council already cost us a lot of human lives. Let's see how that works out for the rest of humanity. Perhaps a Rachni Queen betraying us or the Geth annihilating the Quarians. There were enormous leaps of faith there and sometimes they should backfire.

I liked the 'Elnora the Mercenary' quest for that reason. Paragon option meant you didn't shoot her (I think, I always shot her so I don't know), but she actually was guilty. She should've escaped afterwards, thus backfiring the 'righteous behavior' of the paragon.

Modifié par Vanaer, 06 avril 2011 - 01:27 .

[Pani Mauser]

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.

If you don't punch the journalist, you will find out that  Destiny Ascension had a crew of 10.000 people. If you choose to let DA be destroyed, you sacrifice 10 thousand people of all races (and I bet that ship had more civilians than soldiers on board) to save several hundred human soldiers. So for me it's never about the Council, it is about all those other people on board. Most colonies have less people on them!

As for punishing paragons, I don't mind it, but I really don't want it to be just for the sake of 'LOL, eat this, you foolish paragons!'.

Actually, both games made me feel like paragons are pro-Galaxy and renegades are pro-Human, so  the outcome should be relevant to this.

Like with the end of ME1 - you either strenthen whole galactic community by saving DA at cost of hundreds of human lifes and weakening the Alliance fleet, or you strenthen humanity, allowing them to take over the Council at cost of other races hating on you.

Or in ME2, you can either destroy the base and get support for your crew on this, or you can preserve the base to make the Cerberus (radical pro-Human group) stronger, but your whole team disapproves your decision and it may affect their loyalty in the future.

So, maybe in ME3 Paragons should get something that benefits the galactic community as a whole, but humanity suffers more losses, and renegades get to protect most of the humans, but at consecuence of greater loses for the rest of the galaxy?

[Rekkampum]

NaruxNarusegawa wrote...

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.)

No paragons aren't. The paragon choice on Zaeed's mission ends with you not catching the guy he's after, for instance. It also results in the Genophage data being destroyed, and there's plenty of times where either choice nets you the same results. To say either side is "punished" because of unexpected repercussions as a result of making said choices is ridiculous, since both sides have advantages and disadvantages over the other - renegade choices tend to be human-centered and more morally-neutral, allowing you to get results quicker through sometimes questionable means, whereas paragon choices require some restraint and perspective due to the focus on galactic harmony.

I also think the OP's idea would be very disappointing and frustrating in the long run, and would make the game experience very polarizing and impersonal.

[LPPrince]

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?

Absolutely horrible idea.

Captain Zaysh wrote...

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.

Even more of a horrible idea.

Captain Zaysh wrote...

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.

Just no. Removing control from the player like that is absolutely stupid. Especially because there will be those people who'll get an unsatisfactory ending and then wonder why they had to be "the guy" who got that result. It would ****** off way too many people and would have no positive benefits for anyone.

[Destroy Raiden_]

The right thing is suppose to be the hard thing right? So paras should be misunderstood more times then they'd like. I agree saving the council shouldn't have them being stubborn blocks like they are but considering the back peddling they did after sheps death then him suddenly popping back up saying hi now give me back my spector status is a bit hard to swallow.

However saving the queen should result in death threats, Krogans and others who had family who fought in those wars should view para shep as scum. Para letting Balacks lacky go fine the guy may not be going para anytime soon but he stays a low profile. Letting Balack go however should have him try a bigger grander scheme we all knew would result but hey we wanted to save those three and the world below right?

But rens too should have it bad up till now rens have been total jerks to everyone and no really bats an eye? For instance killing the queen will garner support under those who had family or did fight in the war however the galactic version of peta is all over ren shep like white on rice. Ren shep kept that base well it should do something more terrible then making mindless zombies for them and hinder the war effort, killing the council of course the new one thinks twice on dealing with a ren, I'm not even sure there was an option for letting that asteroid hit the bring down the sky world but if there was rens should have that cause a huge negative impact on them.

BW can't do across the board green for punishment on every decision made some where sounder then others some where morally right then others but they also can't leave those negative or potential issues that could cause negative effects unfulfilled either a balance is needed not every para is bad not every ren is bad or good in either case.

[Mr0TYuH]

I think having Paragon choices backfire shouldn't be random, but it should happen. The best example of this is keeping the cure for the genophage. The game spent an entire mission telling you why curing the genophage is a bad idea. Assuming in ME3 you have an option to use the cure, I would love to see an ending like this:

Shepard, with his fast-breeding krogan army managed to repel the Reaper threat. In the wake of the invasion, with most species decimated, the krogan rapidly spread across the galaxy like a pestilence. Less than a millenium later, the krogan had exterminated every other species.

[Interactive Civilian]

Keep in mind, you didn't actually keep a *cure* for the genophage. You kept the data that Mordin's former assistant had gathered through his experiments that could lead to a cure (and keep in mind could implies "not necessarily will"). Didn't Mordin say it would still take years to build on that data to a possible cure?

[GreenDragon37]

Horrible idea. Yes, there should be punishment for some decisions, but nothing game-breaking. That goes for both Paras and Rens. Honestly, I would sell my ME3 copy if your idea was implemented.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I think Mordin said if the data was kept the time is lessened for a cure so its way more easier for them to do we know Saren churned one out in what a few months? Sense no data is given for how long the Virmire facility was open we won't know but say in the elevator when you hear about the Krogans who sued over a company they hired to make a genophage cure came back with no viable results that co was linked with Saren and he used what they did to make the cure between that announcement and Virmire it was maybe a few months a year tops on game span so Mordin could be halfway if the data was kept and if he decides to continue the program.

[didymos1120]

Arcian wrote...

The reason we release him is to save the hostages, after which we can sic the Alliance on the motherf***er.

Well, that doesn't work.  He's still at large as of ME2 if you go that route, despite being very much wanted. Of course, he apparently hasn't done anything else in the meantime either, so that one's a wash for Paragons. Not that Renegades are punished for killing/capturing him.  They just get a different news report where Kate's dead, and her dad gives the memorial speech instead.

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 avril 2011 - 08:14 .

[Bachmors]

Bad idea ... sorry

It would be just frustrating and dwindle into a reload-orgy.

@CulturalGeekGirl
If this concept you describe was executed well, it would be just perfect!

Modifié par Bachmors, 10 avril 2011 - 08:28 .

[Drake_Hound]

Paragon choices are punished like giving that body in ME1 back to the husband.
Lowers the military recruitment in ME2 .
Paragon choices and punishment are subtiel , Renegade rewards !! is that it has more strong effect.
Isn´t that why you choose renegade options .
Example I killed Elorna (Samara recruitment mission , eclips mercenary) cause I like it .
But my feeling are she will be back in ME3 as conclusion either a arch enemy or a changed person .
That is paragon choices for you , you don´t know the immediate effect or the outcome .

[KevShep]

[quote]Arijharn wrote...

[quote]KevShep wrote...
Going Renegade is... ALSO ... taking a leap of faith, not just paragon! I mean what do you really know about Cerberus? Cerberus and the Reapers live by the same moto..."the ends justify the means", and...ALSO... what if Cerberus is unknowingly working for the Reapers? Cerberus IS trying to make a hybrid of organic and synthetic AI  


It also doesn't make sense for the Reapers to attempt to subtly influence Cerberus into siding with them when Cerberus actively takes steps to disrupt Reaper operations (re-capturing Shephard's body, resurrecting the one person who has successfully fought against them, tasking said person with the destruction of their forward teams (aka; the Collectors and the actions they would be able to undertake when the Reapers actually arrive), gain increased access to the Mass Relay network and destroying/capturing their main facility that just happens to be constructing a new Reaper).

I don't mean to be rude, but have you even thought about what you're saying? How do any of these events, if we are to assume that your theory is correct, helps indirectly or directly, the Reapers themselves?

 



 [quote]KevShep wrote... 
Have you even considered the fact that Shepards scars are the same color as the genetic goo being pumped into the human reaper(yellow-orange color)? Also the fact that when harbringer takes control of a collector that that SAME COLOR in gulfs the collector.......... Harbringers collector/Shepards scars/ human reaper....conection! Also consider the fact that TIM...IS...wanting to build a human controled reaper(from what he tells you at the collector base and project overlord!!!!!!!!) Look at project overlord...putting a human into a VI witch make that a human AI...but as we know it failed...This could be what happend to the reapers in the first place, something DID...go wrong other wise the reapers would not be doing what there doing. The reapers are wanting to build a human reaper, TIM whats to build a human controled reaper, how do we know that the reapers arent just putting up a front to modivate cerberus and Shepard to fix there problem that they themselfs are no longer are capable of fixing. consider too that the collectors dont wait for the reapers to invade to harvest...seems weird! If your going to get you enemy to help you then wouldnt you try to get them to think that your trying to stop them?  It seems like the only reason that the collectors came before the reapers was to give cerberus the tech they needed to "stop...the reapers"  without them rasing the alarm to cerberus that cerberus are actually helping them!  Also if you have played games before then you know that you NEVER take a games plot at face value...ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is ALWAYS more to the story then you first thought...remember that there IS somthing alse hidden about cerberus that we dont know yet...mabe a spoiler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If you want to see My hole theory on the reapers just go to the search in the fourms type "cool reaper theory"

Modifié par KevShep, 10 avril 2011 - 10:18 .

[Phaedon]

Punishing idealism in games with many philosophical concepts? Dunno, there's a heavy risk in that.

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

Punishing idealism in games with many philosophical concepts? Dunno, there's a heavy risk in that.

But the challenge...

[Ieldra]

My take on the situation has always been different:

I have no problem with any one Paragon decision having no bad consequences. After all, if they didn't sometimes work, if having faith in others' goodwill (or fate's goodwill, if you want) didn't sometimes pay off nobody would have such faith.

The problem in the ME universe - at least as far as we know at the moment - is that *all* Paragon decisions are of that kind. That makes it appear as if the universe bends to Shepard's will.

It has been said that outcomes - good and bad - should be made to match the outlook of the character, but that doesn't work because everyone's view of Paragon or Renegade Shepard is different. You may be a Renegade because you're pro-human dominance, then making humanity stronger but other species' hating humans might be an acceptable outcome, or you may be a Renegade because you really think those Renegade decisions are necessary to win, but you're a multilateralist nonetheless, in which case the aforementioned outcome would be a bad one.
Take the CB decision. Suppose that, if you keep the Collector base, there is a "human dominance" outcome. One of my Renegons is a "win at all costs" person, but not pro human dominance, so for him that outcome would be bad, though it must be accepted for the greater good of the galaxy. Another of my Renegons is a 100% Cerberus loyalist, for her that outcome would be perfect.

Then there is the problem that sometimes, both sides exist, but only one side is shown. For instance the results of the ME1 endgame decision. It may be that humanity is stronger if you let the Council die, but we don't get to see that. It doesn't even have a minor effect while playing. On the other side, other species hating humans we do get to experience directly.

I think there should be one major Paragon decision in the game whose outcome is bad from any possible big picture perspective. One example would be the Rachni turning hostile if you don't kill the queen in ME1 (not that I really want that, it's just an example). Another one would be if you help curing the genophage then there's another krogan expansion. Just as there are Renegade decisions that result in a politically fragmented galaxy, which is, human dominance or not, a bad outcome for the big picture.

Or in short: Renegades must often live with being hated for having done what's necessary. Let Paragons occasionally be hated for having failed to do what was necessary.

[Wulfram]

Drake_Hound wrote...

Paragon choices are punished like giving that body in ME1 back to the husband.
Lowers the military recruitment in ME2 .

That's not a paragon/renegade choice.  Paragons can persuade the husband to agree to the tests and renegades can make them give the body back.