130 réponses à ce sujet

[ODST 5723]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...
The problem with ME2's Renegade Shepard was the fact that all of his decisions WERE just about being a jerk, rather than getting the job done in the quickest way possible. The only time that happens is if you skip a loyalty mission... and skipping content isn't my idea of having a great renegade playthrough. Renegades should have DIFFERENT content, sure, even if it hurts Shepard's mission in some cases, but they shouldn't lose out on it.

I got plenty of different content as a Renegade.

My favorites being related to the end of Jacob's loyalty mission, allowing Garrus to embrace his inner-Renegade and several of the interrupts.  The moments that were fairly solid also included the "man up" moments where you hardened someone's attitudes.

Toasting that one Krogan, kicking a guy out of a window and preventing a killer from escaping scott free only to discover I'd made a mistake were pretty satisfying.

I liked choosing the options that felt right for the moment rather than trying to subscribe to either of hte extremes.  The end result was a strong paragon w/ a definite renegade streak if it mean saving lives and getting the job done.  And sometimes, that meant a bit of Renegade justice.

My Shepard is basically Raylan Givens.

[Cavegeta]

I agree with the OP. Renegades seem to get the shaft as it goes content wise and that's part of the reason that I mainly play as a paragon, other reasons being that since I cannot see what Shepard is actually going to say on the voice wheel, I'm met with unintended actions when I choose a renegade option.

To me though, the flaw is based in the renegade/paragon system. Like in Kotor, I have to choose a way to play early on and keep to it in order to earn any kind of benefit later on. One of my problems with ME1 was that there were charm and intimidate bars rather than one persuade bar that would govern both. ME2 had neither and linked options solely to how far along you were at being either renegade or paragon. My problem with the system as is, is that there are a lot of times in both games where I feel it would be better to either be a renegade or paragon but that just puts me in a neutral category whereby I don't get the benefits of either.

I would say that the OP is right but with one slight difference. As far as content goes, Paragon>Renegade (with the exception of some hillirious dialogue)>Neutral

[Thrombin]

Cavegeta wrote...
I would say that the OP is right but with one slight difference. As far as content goes, Paragon>Renegade (with the exception of some hillirious dialogue)>Neutral

Has anyone ever played Neutral?  I'm in the middle of a Neutral ME1 run through at the moment just to see some different dialogue and scenarios for a change.

It's not really as bad as I thought it was going to be

[tjzsf]

Preferred the charm/intimidate bars in ME1, as it didn't tie your options as much to the karma bars as ME2's ratio system did. In addition, I fully endorse that at least some paragon choices need to have negative consequences, and some more renegade choices need to have positive consequences. As it stands, the "pragmatic" aspect of renegade is pretty pointless form a roleplaying perspective simply because there's usually a better choice that results in a greater payoff, rendering the renegade "pragmatic" choice highly unnecessary, such that it's no longer the "more pragmatic" or the "more practical" choice, simply the more dickish one.

[James2912]

I think they should go back to charm and intimidate it looks like ME3 is just going to be a big paragon I told you so. making the paragon renegade mechanic kind of a sham. And before people start saying the games not out yet you don't know blah blah blah. The biggest renegade choice was giving the base to cerberus at the end which is obviously now bad because Cerberus is going to be an enemy in ME3.