904 réponses à ce sujet

[GenericPlayer2]

Renegade rewards or Paragon punishment does not have to be too severe, but even small cameos and acknowledgments would be nice. Take Pitne For as an example. I would like to see him in ME3 as a vendor for upgrades available only to Sheps that gave him the Minagen X3 manifest instead of turning him into the cops. Let Renegade Shep win one!

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 21 mai 2011 - 07:51 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I don't recall where Paragon/Renegade Garrus falls on the axis, but the Paragon-ized Ash or Renegade-d Kaiden are at the extreme ends of their spectrums, even past Wrex and Liara.

I believe it goes in this order (1 being most paragon and 6 being most renegade)

• Liara
• Kaidan*
• Tali
• Garrus
• Ashley*
• Wrex

*Ashley and Kaidan take the 1st and 6th spots respectively if you influence their morality.

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 21 mai 2011 - 07:57 .

[CroGamer002]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I don't recall where Paragon/Renegade Garrus falls on the axis, but the Paragon-ized Ash or Renegade-d Kaiden are at the extreme ends of their spectrums, even past Wrex and Liara.

I believe it goes in this order (1 being most paragon and 6 being most renegade)

• Liara
• Kaidan*
• Tali
• Ashley*
• Garrus
• Wrex

*Ashley and Kaidan take the 1st and 6th spots respectively if you influence their morality.

fixed

[lovgreno]

Drachasor wrote...

I don't know, a Renegade that goes around making other races angry and belittling them should reap the proper consequences of such behavior when they realize they need those other races as allies.

It isn't like going through life as a jerk has roughly the same pros and cons as going through it as a nicer guy (who still kicks ass when needed). The jerk is going to do worse.  The game having a bias against racists jerks makes a lot of sense.

Agreed.

Frankly the renegade options are often just childish with those tantrums and bully of the school attitude. And getting a kick of killing and intimidating people usualy makes you end up with the losers in the jail, asylum, gutter or grave.

Paragon gives everyone (well most) people a chance to be allies if not friends. Yes this is naive in a way and yes this is sometimes used by cynical opportunist to take advantage of you. But this is a risk worth taking as you will usualy get more allies and less enemies compared to going around giving the finger to everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say. Remember that in real life many allies and few enemies is what truly separates the winners from the losers.

And in any case a high renegade score will not mean that you can't beat the reapers.

Modifié par lovgreno, 21 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[DPSSOC]

lovgreno wrote...

Drachasor wrote...
I don't know, a Renegade that goes around making other races angry and belittling them should reap the proper consequences of such behavior when they realize they need those other races as allies.

It isn't like going through life as a jerk has roughly the same pros and cons as going through it as a nicer guy (who still kicks ass when needed). The jerk is going to do worse.  The game having a bias against racists jerks makes a lot of sense.

Agreed.

Frankly the renegade options are often just childish with those tantrums and bully of the school attitude. And getting a kick of killing and intimidating people usualy makes you end up with the losers in the jail, asylum, gutter or grave.

Yes and nobody's complaining about those decisions not coming up roses for RenShep.  It's the decisions that aren't childish tantrums or dick-moves we take issue with.  Killing the Rachni for example isn't "LOLZ I KILLZ TEH BUGZ" it's a sensible attitude given the greater galactic communities experience with them (Rachni Wars), and more importantly your personal experience with them (the only reason one of them isn't trying to kill you is it can't).  Not saying the Paragon choice isn't sensible but you can't just right off the Renegade option here.

Now I'm not saying we should be rewarded for killing the Rachni; we already were because the Rachni are now dead.  The threat of a second Rachni War has been eliminated; that's our reward.  Our cost is we lose an ally.  Perfectly fair, perfectly reasonable.  Paragons get the reward of an ally and your cost is...what exactly?  Do not bring up Rachni enemies, both players will have them or I'll eat my laptop.  Seriously though we have no grounds to conclude Rachni enemies in ME3 will be restricted to Paragons while we do have grounds to conclude Rachni Allies will (Illium Messenger).

lovgreno wrote...
Paragon gives everyone (well most) people a chance to be allies if not friends. Yes this is naive in a way and yes this is sometimes used by cynical opportunist to take advantage of you. But this is a risk worth taking as you know they never will

There fixed that up for you.  Again this is the problem Renegade players have, not with how Renegade decisions were handled, but with how Paragons were.  Youre right that Shepard's universal kindness is naive and someone could take advantage of it.  To date not a single person does.  That's all it would take, just one of the many dangerous criminals Shepard let's go not showing up completely reformed or broken.  I have no problem with many, hell even most, of Shepard's acts of kindness turning out for the better, I'm not quite so jaded as that, but that none of them turn out bad is just !@#$ing ridiculous.  Just one, that's all we want, just one person to take advantage of Paragon Shepards trust.

lovgreno wrote...
And in any case a high renegade score will not mean that you can't beat the reapers.

Yes and your point is?  If 2 classes were horribly unbalanced as to make playing one the equivalent of god-mode should I not complain because I can still beat the game with the weaker class?  That's the problem we have, ME2 makes it out that ME3 for Paragon Shep is going to be sitting behind a wall of allies while obliterating the Reapers with negligible casualties and everyone get's along forever.  Renegade Shep on the other hand is going to be facing the Reapers alone armed with only a pistol in a beautifully rendered adaptation of Space Invaders, and in the end Shep dies and what's left of the human race (cause the Reapers killed like 99.9% of them) are enslaved by Batarians.  But all of that's ok because I technically won.

That's what's got us worried, not that we won't be able to win, but that the balance will be so skewed to the Paragons that Renegade victory will only be a small step above Critical Mission Failure.  Now I've said before it's entirely possible that the perceived imbalance does not exist, that Renegades get as many boosts as Paragons and vice-versa we just aren't catching them, but if it does exist, if the game is favouring one side over the other, that's a problem.

[Seboist]

Renegades will be squaring off against Cerberus/Rogue Rachni if the Queen is dead. Heck, already back in ME1 you faced them AFTER she was dead.

[PrinceLionheart]

Mesina2 wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I don't recall where Paragon/Renegade Garrus falls on the axis, but the Paragon-ized Ash or Renegade-d Kaiden are at the extreme ends of their spectrums, even past Wrex and Liara.

I believe it goes in this order (1 being most paragon and 6 being most renegade)

• Liara
• Kaidan*
• Tali
• Ashley*
• Garrus
• Wrex

*Ashley and Kaidan take the 1st and 6th spots respectively if you influence their morality.

fixed

That's weird. When I brought Ashley and Garrus along for the final mission, Ash was the one to egg me on to abandon the Council and Garrus tried to argue to save them.

[PrinceLionheart]

Mesina2 wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I don't recall where Paragon/Renegade Garrus falls on the axis, but the Paragon-ized Ash or Renegade-d Kaiden are at the extreme ends of their spectrums, even past Wrex and Liara.

I believe it goes in this order (1 being most paragon and 6 being most renegade)

• Liara
• Kaidan*
• Tali
• Ashley*
• Garrus
• Wrex

*Ashley and Kaidan take the 1st and 6th spots respectively if you influence their morality.

fixed

That's weird. When I brought Ashley and Garrus along for the final mission, Ash was the one to egg me on to abandon the Council and Garrus tried to argue to save them.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Now I'm not saying we should be rewarded for killing the Rachni; we already were because the Rachni are now dead.  The threat of a second Rachni War has been eliminated; that's our reward.  Our cost is we lose an ally.  Perfectly fair, perfectly reasonable.  Paragons get the reward of an ally and your cost is...what exactly?  Do not bring up Rachni enemies, both players will have them or I'll eat my laptop.  Seriously though we have no grounds to conclude Rachni enemies in ME3 will be restricted to Paragons while we do have grounds to conclude Rachni Allies will (Illium Messenger).

The paragon cost is worrying if the choice will come back to haunt them. In reality, some choices simply are better than others. I am not sure that you can even cite karma on this, since sparing lives is usually considered more likely to  bring karmic rewards.

And the annoying thing is if the Rachni do turn hostile after all, there will be renegades complaining that paragons are getting more content.

The net result of such whining (that everything be equal) is games where no decision matters and everything turns out precisely the same no matter what you do.... or alternatively turns out equally bad.

There fixed that up for you.  Again this is the problem Renegade players have, not with how Renegade decisions were handled, but with how Paragons were.  Youre right that Shepard's universal kindness is naive and someone could take advantage of it.  To date not a single person does.  That's all it would take, just one of the many dangerous criminals Shepard let's go not showing up completely reformed or broken.  I have no problem with many, hell even most, of Shepard's acts of kindness turning out for the better, I'm not quite so jaded as that, but that none of them turn out bad is just !@#$ing ridiculous.  Just one, that's all we want, just one person to take advantage of Paragon Shepards trust.

I still am hoping that there is fallout from the Feros survivors. We have had two chances to deal with them now. They could have been killed outright in ME1 or subjected to more invasive tests in ME2. There is obviously something causing their issues and the basic tests didn't find it. It would be good writing if trying to be 'nice' to them by talking the labs out of further testing turned out to be the wrong decision.

Rewriting the Heretics might prove the wrong choice too. I am still not convinced that is actually a paragon solution though, regardless of how BW sees it.

Other than that, most of the decisions have turned out pretty neutral. Helena Blake either ends up dead (full renegade) working for Aria (partial renegade, which given Aria is generally liked isn't a bad renegade result) or reformed (paragon).

That's what's got us worried, not that we won't be able to win, but that the balance will be so skewed to the Paragons that Renegade victory will only be a small step above Critical Mission Failure.  Now I've said before it's entirely possible that the perceived imbalance does not exist, that Renegades get as many boosts as Paragons and vice-versa we just aren't catching them, but if it does exist, if the game is favouring one side over the other, that's a problem.

It is really unlikely that it will turn out that one sided. The only issue that could come under that category is that I can see those who deliberately got most of their squad killed having a lot more trouble in ME3, but that isn't renegade per se and actually takes work to accomplish.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 21 mai 2011 - 11:46 .

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...
The paragon cost is worrying if the choice will come back to haunt them. In reality, some choices simply are better than others. I am not sure that you can even cite karma on this, since sparing lives is usually considered more likely to  bring karmic rewards.

And the annoying thing is if the Rachni do turn hostile after all, there will be renegades complaining that paragons are getting more content.

The net result of such whining (that everything be equal) is games where no decision matters and everything turns out precisely the same no matter what you do.... or alternatively turns out equally bad.

I'm not looking for both paths to be equal, I'm fine with Paragon being better, my issue is that it's perfect.  No Paragon choice comes at any cost.  The Council is saved with no indication that humanity is any weaker for the loss of their cruisers or that there is any hostility from humanity over the sacrifice.  The Rachni are alive and well wihtout even a hint that the other races are uneasy about it.  Not a single criminal you let go ever reoffends, etc.  I'm fine with Paragon being better overall lord knows there's no way even the mightiest Alliance we could imagine could match the big three even after they've been devastated by Sovereign, but as I've said before, Renegades get what they want with a negative consequence they don't.  That's all I want for Paragons; that their rewards, reasonable as they are, be tempered by consequence.

P.S. You're probably right about the Rachni

[HunterX6]

paragons shouldnt be punished, only the ones that dont make the extreme paragon or renegades should be the only ones punished, plus being paragon is more of the professional choice, dont believe me? masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morality

Modifié par HunterX6, 22 mai 2011 - 02:41 .

[Darkhour]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Yep, it's one of those threads... except this time it's written by a paragon.

Basically, I've been thinking about the two moralities, and I think that at it's core, renegade is about minimising risk at the expense of morality, while paragon is about choosing not to sacrifice morality, but take more risks in the process.
It seems to me that it makes that choice more meaningful if some of those risks blow up in your face.

Take Balak. You can either make sure he's captured, but have the blood of innocents on your hands. Or, you can let him go to save their lives. Naturally, this should have repercussions, and makes the choice seem more difficult if it is. Keeping your morality shouldn't be an easy task.

And please, don't let this become a flamewar. I'd like to approach this more objectively this time.

In otherwords, more of the same (i.e. paragons get more content than renegades). Hardly a punishment.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yeah Bioware could've shown more negative sides to the Paragon decisions and more positive sides to the Renegade decisions.  Like in Fable or RDR, doing evil deeds get you a different kind of attention while still feeling that you've done an evil deed.  In RDR, you get an evil steed that wouldn't come to you if you'd been a Paragon and vice versa.

Point being, you can have bad reactions while still providing content. 

[NoSoyBueno]

Moiaussi wrote...
The paragon cost is worrying if the choice will come back to haunt them.

Except I only ever end up worrying about or regretting Renegade choices. On my main paragon playthrough, there was only one case between ME1 and ME2 in which I had to pick anything other than the top option - dealing with Jax.

In contrast, just the other day it occurred to me that on a renegade playthrough I could have selected a paragon opening and not only acquired the desired outcome, but also gotten more renegade points when confronting the guard about beating the prisoner in Jack's recruitment. That's way too early in the game to go back now. Incidentally, much like they do with the Collector base, every single squadmate denounces the beating, even the ones that could not have been recruited at that time and even the ones that one might expect to have no issue with it (Thane says that it accomplishes nothing, yet you can quite literally beat the answers out of two people in his loyalty mission).

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 22 mai 2011 - 06:44 .

[Undertone]

And also from Harkin in Garrus loyalty mission. It's okay to have variety but when literally every squad mate denounced me for keeping the Collector base even the ones who encouraged me in the first place then the bias is obvious.

[NoSoyBueno]

Redacted

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 22 mai 2011 - 06:16 .

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

The paragon cost is worrying if the choice will come back to haunt them.

Not much of a cost when no choice ever comes back to haunt you.

They aren't going to do ME's covering all of time. For all we know the Rachni could become a problem in the future. Helena Blake could turn out to be only pretending to reform and end up being worse than she ever was. The collector base might be bad to hand over in the short term but some seemingly minor tech from it could end up saving billions sometime in the future.

We cannot know all the costs in advance. We cannot know in character if saving the DA was a good tactical decision or a bad one since they happened in alternate universes. There is no comparative results (there aren't even any out of character, let alone in character).

Trying to do the right thing tends to be harder simply because 'the right thing' is harder to determine than the expedient thing.

I do understand what you are saying. From a metagaming perspective you have a strong point.

[Seboist]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
The paragon cost is worrying if the choice will come back to haunt them.

Except I only ever end up worrying about or regretting Renegade choices. On my main paragon playthrough, there was only one case between ME1 and ME2 in which I had to pick anything other than the top option - dealing with Jax.

In contrast, just the other day it occurred to me that on a renegade playthrough I could have selected a paragon opening and not only acquired the desired outcome, but also gotten more renegade points when confronting the guard about beating the prisoner in Jack's recruitment. That's way too early in the game to go back now. Incidentally, much like they do with the Collector base, every single squadmate denounces the beating, even the ones that could not have been recruited at that time and even the ones that one might expect to have no issue with it (Thane says that it accomplishes nothing, yet you can quite literally beat the answers out of two people in his loyalty mission).

-NSB

It's weird that Zaeed denounces it, even though when we first meet him he's beating the living daylights out of a Batarian and ends up shooting him in the leg.

[Darkhour]

Seboist wrote...

It's weird that Zaeed denounces it, even though when we first meet him he's beating the living daylights out of a Batarian and ends up shooting him in the leg.

He wasn't interrogating that batarian.  He was beating him into submission and angry that he had to chase him around. He shoot him because he tried to run.

[Haventh]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Yep, it's one of those threads... except this time it's written by a paragon.

Basically, I've been thinking about the two moralities, and I think that at it's core, renegade is about minimising risk at the expense of morality, while paragon is about choosing not to sacrifice morality, but take more risks in the process.
It seems to me that it makes that choice more meaningful if some of those risks blow up in your face.

Take Balak. You can either make sure he's captured, but have the blood of innocents on your hands. Or, you can let him go to save their lives. Naturally, this should have repercussions, and makes the choice seem more difficult if it is. Keeping your morality shouldn't be an easy task.

And please, don't let this become a flamewar. I'd like to approach this more objectively this time.

You do know that morality depends on the person?  One person might find it sickening to kill a terrorist and let 5 people die. While another would think it completely fine. 


But i do agree, that there should be consequences (for both paragon and renegade).

[Seboist]

Darkhour wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It's weird that Zaeed denounces it, even though when we first meet him he's beating the living daylights out of a Batarian and ends up shooting him in the leg.

He wasn't interrogating that batarian.  He was beating him into submission and angry that he had to chase him around. He shoot him because he tried to run.

That prison guard wasn't interrogating that prisoner either.