904 réponses à ce sujet

[vanslyke85]

it's hard to pick a side on this. I have both paragon and renegade sheps and loved all playthroughs. Common sense dictates that paragon shepherd would be the more successful in a game that is clearly about securing allies and uniting species. Obviously if you kill all the rachni in ME1 then you'll be punished for that by not having them as allies in ME3 cause clearly they're dead, if you kill wrex then he's gone for you and also the krogans might not be united enough to go to war with you, the list goes on and on. if your a jerk and kill everyone at every chance you get then you might have a harder run for it in ME3. just play a paragon playthrough too anyways since its a video game so get the most out of it!!

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

There's no irony. All I did was call the likes of you out on your stupidity.

If you gotta call that whining to feel less miserable about yourself, more power to you.

Oh, no, not at all. I can feel less miserable about myself by plenty other means, like personal relativism. All I have to do is compare myself to you, and I'm generally in a better mood for some time.

You, ma'am, are a wonder for people with low self-esteem.

It would've been easier if you just typed "no u", loser. I can see your comebacks are as devoid of intelligence as your pseudo-intellectual rants and your rampant whining. Too bad you're too delusional and self-absorbed to notice that.

I'm male, by the way.

Modifié par lolwut666, 11 mai 2011 - 03:42 .

[Ultai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Everybody scolds them

Post collector base conversations gave me a raised eyebrow, given that some of the characters will tell you to keep it, then proceed to do a complete 180 from just moments ago on the ship and basically go "Oh nvm I changed my mind, bad idea why'd you do it!?"

Modifié par Ultai, 11 mai 2011 - 03:44 .

[DAT ASARI]

I don't understand at all a debate between playing either way. You know you can import 12 different ME1 characters into ME2? The game is meant to be played a lot as different characters.

Rock it up.  Play as a paragon dude, then play as a paragon broad, then a renegade broad, and a renegade dude.  Or start with a renegade dude and go to the paragon broad.  Punch the reporter with a paragon lady, or be nice to her with a renegade dude.  Mix it up!  

"Time to shut you up!" is the greatest choice in any game ever BTW.

Modifié par DAT ASARI, 11 mai 2011 - 03:47 .

[Seboist]

Ultai wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Everybody scolds them

Post collector base conversations gave me a raised eyebrow, given that some of the characters will tell you to keep it, then proceed to do a complete 180 from just moments ago on the ship and basically go "Oh nvm I changed my mind, bad idea why'd you do it!?"

That goes along "well" with not being able to see the human dominated council and being hated by aliens(but not hated by humans if you sacrifice human vessels) as was the case with the ME1 end renegade choice.

There's a clear bias as to which end choices are the preferred ones by the devs.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

It would've been easier if you just typed "no u", loser. I can see your comebacks are as devoid of intelligence as your pseudo-intellectual rants and your rampant whining. Too bad you're too delusional and self-absorbed to notice that.

Full of sound and fury today, aren't you?

Your display of wisdom, wit, and interpersonal tact are an inspiration to learn from. You redefine optimism for the human race.

I'm male, by the way.

Simply because it's the internet doesn't mean you need to hide it, ma'am. It's the twenty-first century: we all know there's nothing at all wrong with being a woman.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 mai 2011 - 03:50 .

[Golden Owl]

[quote]tjzsf wrote...

[quote]Golden Owl wrote...
[snip for brevity]

It just strikes me that a select group of loud people are hell bent on punishing paragons, because they simply don't like paragons, thats the one that REALLY irks me...(no I'm not pointing my finger at you)...As I have stated on a number of occasions, I want to see equally rich play for both sides, but that doesn't need to come down to punishments and rewards, just different game plays and outcomes.

[/quote]
Ah. I haven't been playing this nearly enough (just got ME1 like two weeks ago), which is probably why my opinions haven't been flanderized as such. I fully expect to become some extreme of "PARAGONS ARE AWESOME! RENEGADES ARE IDIOT DOUCHES!" or "RENEGADES KICK ASS! PARAGONS ARE SANCTIMONIOUS ******!" in a few months. Though I think, in a sense, different gameplays and outcomes *are* rewards/punishments, at least when one style gets you less than the other. Although, while extremists are irksome, you do have to admit those
extremely vocal renegade players do have their counterparts among paragon
players, namely those who advocate "it's a consequence. deal with it."
when their alignment more or less means they never have to "deal with
it."[/quote]

Please, please, please don't ever become extremist on either side..........thoughtful debate is so much more fun than personal attacks....funny thing how we seem to get more out of the debate too then.... Just quietly, personally I am hoping my paragon Shep is going to have to deal with some harsh realities, not so much for him not wishing to harm everyone who stumbles across his path...but more so for the leaps of faith that he takes...there have been a number of decisions that I have made with him, that I am quite wary about, but made them regardless because of lack of other choices I would prefer to take...I don't think our Sheps seek enough information to be able to make a well thought out call in either direction and really think they need to be bitten in the a** for being too trusting or too homicidel at times....That would be a lot more realistic to me, instead of punish paragon/renegade just because.

[quote]tbh I think we'd just like at least one instance where being paragon resulted in a net loss to galactic safety, instead of a net gain like it seems to always do - like, if the rachni queen turns out to be lying to you after all (she'd still logically help out against the Reapers, as the latter are a threat to all organics, but you'd have to clean up the mess later). And more where there's not a clear good choice, and it just depends on what your values prioritize - like the end of Bring Down the Sky (save the hostages? or bag the terrorists?).[/quote]

The queen is one I am wary about, not enough information available there when Shep makes his call....I am hoping that she remains at peace though, not necessarily for game play sake, more for the fact that she just happened to strike a chord in me...simply, I like her. Balak has me concerned too and though its a DLC, I do hope there are repercussions in ME3....I'm not looking for my Shep to be God's gift, I want him human and just as able to stuff up as much as the rest of us, I was very happy with Arrival for that very reason, Shep fell off his shining gold throne...did what he could, the best he could, but remains ultimately responsible for what happened (not being specific in case you haven't played it)....I thought it was a very good call from BW.
[/quote]

[Golden Owl]

Ultai wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

Wow!! Ouch!!...I felt that....Now that would be hard.

I wish this was the case.

However the binary morality system really doesn't allow it, grey is more interesting than black and white.  That said, they're not asking for "punishment", they asking for consequences, which I'm all for.  Bad things happen to good people needs to start showing it's face around in ME.

Consequences I'm more than cool with....punishment is ridiculous.

[Ultai]

Golden Owl wrote...

Consequences I'm more than cool with....punishment is ridiculous.

So far there hasn't been an equal amount to go around, imo.  Sometimes I get annoyed at the I WIN button of the charm options, and to a lesser extent intimidate.  When presented with those choices, it takes out all of the drama and decision in the choice, which is the vibe I get from that tv spot.  But that's more a problem in design with the paragon/renegade system.  I think it would be interesting if some choices, like the collector base were put on the middle spokes of the wheel.

[Golden Owl]

Ultai wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Consequences I'm more than cool with....punishment is ridiculous.

So far there hasn't been an equal amount to go around, imo.  Sometimes I get annoyed at the I WIN button of the charm options, and to a lesser extent intimidate.  When presented with those choices, it takes out all of the drama and decision in the choice, which is the vibe I get from that tv spot.  But that's more a problem in design with the paragon/renegade system.  I think it would be interesting if some choices, like the collector base were put on the middle spokes of the wheel.

I think what would be very helpful also is having Sheps dialogue better match the offerings on the wheel, I found a number of times, that what he says is quite far off of what the wheel wording suggests and to be honest, I know I would probably have a much more complex and involved game play...maybe even not quite so much paragon...if I had a better idea of exactly what I was activating...if BW does that, then the wheel options would be best not represented as top = paragon....bottom = renegade. This would have I think a dramatic effect on charm/intimidate options and such things as you suggested....Collector Base on the neutral line, would make us all think much more deeply about the possible consequences of our actions and words.

[Manic Sheep]

mrsph wrote...

I've thought of two, probably very crappy, consequences for paragons:

the Council: Saving the Council provides a more stable galactic government, at the expense of weaker militaries. But killing them causes the turians to get into an arms race with humanity, increasing the military power for both. Which will help against the Reapers.

Mmm that’s why I don’t necessarily think the council decision which is one often brought up in the “Renegades get screwed over” complaints is necessarily as one sided as it may first appear. The turians no longer limiting dreadnought production might actually help provided everyone doesn’t kill each other before the reapers arrive.

mrsph wrote...the base: TIM does betray you. But near the middle of the game you have to capture the base from him. Allowing you to finally uses it for your own uses. Making the second half of the game slightly easier. Paragons will get a slightly easier beginning (since the Cerberus soldiers won't have their upgrades from the use of the base)

That’s a possibility too .

Ultai wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

I wish this was the case.

Ahh I love that commercial. If only you had that sort of thing in the game. Anyhow this is off topic but I think bioware should add more dialogue options with the major decisions even if there are only really 2 options you should have at least 3 or 4 dialogue options to go with for the paragades and renegons . You get this in a few places like with the council decision. “concentrate on sovereign” and “let the council die” tho they ultimately result in the same thing. You also have this on Mordins LM. One of the problems I get is in ME is character sounding OCC in major decisions.
Edit: FUUUUU I can't type. Ignore my fob english.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 11 mai 2011 - 04:58 .

[jbblue05]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're given a choice:
Do the right thing and put the mission at risk.
Complete the mission by throwing morals on the wayside.

What should happen:
Paragon choices should hinder the mission, you're doing the right thing at the cost of the mission. Renegade ones should be able to complete the mission, knowing they had to sacrifice to get them.

What is happening:
Paragons save people, complete the mission and everybody pats them on the back and they get equal reward to the Renegade. The Renegade sacrifices their morals, completes the mission, everybody scolds them and they get either: the same reward as the paragon or they get punished with less dialogue / scenes / friends / whatever.

In addition to this, to the Renegades who didn't want the scars had to spend lots of resources to fix it. A paragon had to do nothing, they just simply were. Meaning we had to spend more credits, resources and fuel to fix the scars.

This.

I had to waste 50000 platinum

[Clonedzero]

yeah i really think paragon choices shouldnt always turn out perfectly.

and i play 90% paragon

[NoSoyBueno]

It kind of takes the challenge out of the game when you know you can just stick to the top half of the conversation options and never have anything bad happen. I do remember one instance where things went bad: helping Chellick with Jax, in which case Paragon got a shootout and some strong words from Chellick.

-NSB

[Manic Sheep]

jbblue05 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're given a choice:
Do the right thing and put the mission at risk.
Complete the mission by throwing morals on the wayside.

What should happen:
Paragon choices should hinder the mission, you're doing the right thing at the cost of the mission. Renegade ones should be able to complete the mission, knowing they had to sacrifice to get them.

What is happening:
Paragons save people, complete the mission and everybody pats them on the back and they get equal reward to the Renegade. The Renegade sacrifices their morals, completes the mission, everybody scolds them and they get either: the same reward as the paragon or they get punished with less dialogue / scenes / friends / whatever.

In addition to this, to the Renegades who didn't want the scars had to spend lots of resources to fix it. A paragon had to do nothing, they just simply were. Meaning we had to spend more credits, resources and fuel to fix the scars.

This.

I had to waste 50000 platinum

Tho the flipside to that one is that some people actually like those scars. The renegades can get rid of them but the paragons can't get them. They should have made it cost less tho. I could never be bothered getting 50000 platinum.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 11 mai 2011 - 04:50 .

[Seboist]

jbblue05 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're given a choice:
Do the right thing and put the mission at risk.
Complete the mission by throwing morals on the wayside.

What should happen:
Paragon choices should hinder the mission, you're doing the right thing at the cost of the mission. Renegade ones should be able to complete the mission, knowing they had to sacrifice to get them.

What is happening:
Paragons save people, complete the mission and everybody pats them on the back and they get equal reward to the Renegade. The Renegade sacrifices their morals, completes the mission, everybody scolds them and they get either: the same reward as the paragon or they get punished with less dialogue / scenes / friends / whatever.

In addition to this, to the Renegades who didn't want the scars had to spend lots of resources to fix it. A paragon had to do nothing, they just simply were. Meaning we had to spend more credits, resources and fuel to fix the scars.

This.

I had to waste 50000 platinum

That was a steep price just so my Shepard can not end up looking like the Terminator.

[Dave of Canada]

Here's how I'd "punish" Paragons.

Ignoring how Renegades barely get any cameos, just going to focus on two large choices.

All examples will assume Paragon / Renegade players are 100% in their respective morality. Imagining that gathering forces is like some sort of imaginary statistic goal to reach to save Earth.

First, we've got the Council decision from ME1.

Paragon
Killing the Council would lead to the Turian / Asari / Salarian worlds into an arms race against humanity, this would mean that an army led by the Renegade Shepard would be stronger but probably more fragile in terms of trust. The mission to possibly recruit them would prove more difficult, maybe wasting more time that could have been used elsewhere.

Renegade
Sparing the Council would lead to the homeworlds being a lot less of a hassle to recruit, though the forces are weaker. Paragon Shepard would have to spend time to recruit more forces because the combined fleets aren't that powerful, not every species are as strong as they could be.

This would create a very different experience for both players, no side is directly punished (they both have their pros / cons) and it allows for a very different play experience for both Shepards.

Then we've got the Rachni Queen decision.

Paragon
Paragon Shepard who spared the Rachni Queen is given extra soldiers to play around with, increasing how strong their fleet is. As a consequence of this, they might have to deal with tension from the Krogan and they'd have to deal with the Rachni husks. One possible use could be branching paths, like Rachni digging holes under indocrinated soldiers so you can sneak pass them.

Renegade
Renegade Shepard, having killed the Rachni Queen, has gained the respect of the Krogan. The Krogan will be more likely to throw their support for Shepard, making their recruitment easier than those who kept the Queen alive. In the scenario above of the indocrinated soldiers mentioned in the Paragon example, you would have to fight through them.

ect ect, you get the picture.

Though if ME2 and the previews for ME3 are any indication, we're going to have Paragons being praised and given the best fleet while Renegades have to deal with the same and have the weaker army in the end.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 mai 2011 - 04:49 .

[MajFauxPas]

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.

I'd take a different approach:
Everyone starts Renegade. Basic decisions result in some sort of profit when choosing renegade responses; kill civilian and take his nice gear. Negative or no change to alignment.

But the paragon choice would be to save the civilian and get nothing but thanks and paragon points. Perhaps there could be a special paragon skill or passive which levels when character reaches 50% 75% and 100% paragon points... something worth working towards.

[jbblue05]

Manic Sheep wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're given a choice:
Do the right thing and put the mission at risk.
Complete the mission by throwing morals on the wayside.

What should happen:
Paragon choices should hinder the mission, you're doing the right thing at the cost of the mission. Renegade ones should be able to complete the mission, knowing they had to sacrifice to get them.

What is happening:
Paragons save people, complete the mission and everybody pats them on the back and they get equal reward to the Renegade. The Renegade sacrifices their morals, completes the mission, everybody scolds them and they get either: the same reward as the paragon or they get punished with less dialogue / scenes / friends / whatever.

In addition to this, to the Renegades who didn't want the scars had to spend lots of resources to fix it. A paragon had to do nothing, they just simply were. Meaning we had to spend more credits, resources and fuel to fix the scars.

This.

I had to waste 50000 platinum

Tho the flipside to that one is that some people actually like those scars. The renegades can get rid of them but the paragons can't get them. They should have made it cost less tho. I could never be bothered getting 50000 platinum.

7500 platinum would be more reasonable

[Manic Sheep]

MajFauxPas wrote...

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.

I'd take a different approach:
Everyone starts Renegade. Basic decisions result in some sort of profit when choosing renegade responses; kill civilian and take his nice gear. Negative or no change to alignment.

But the paragon choice would be to save the civilian and get nothing but thanks and paragon points. Perhaps there could be a special paragon skill or passive which levels when character reaches 50% 75% and 100% paragon points... something worth working towards.

Na I don’t think that work very well or make sense. You start off with a scary rep? Also killing civilians and taking their stuff? Renegade =/= evil.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 11 mai 2011 - 05:20 .

[PMC65]

The problem for me with the whole paragon/renegade equaling right/wrong thinking is that it removes the struggle in the choices ... at least for me. 

Example:
Standing over the rachni queen Shepard struggled with the decision of what to do. 
1) Let her live = Ignore history and risk repeating it which would result in another rachni war
2) Kill her = Lose a potential ally & resource against the reapers which would equal greater loss of life

If the game is simply a blue choice means "good" and red means "bad" then there is no risk = no struggle. You can simply turn off your brain and punch blue all the way .... victory!   

I never thought that Bioware set the game with this in mind, but I could be wrong.

Hopefully Bioware has a few surprises for everyone. Only time will tell ....






 

[Nimrodell]

PMC65 wrote...

The problem for me with the whole paragon/renegade equaling right/wrong thinking is that it removes the struggle in the choices ... at least for me. 

Example:
Standing over the rachni queen Shepard struggled with the decision of what to do. 
1) Let her live = Ignore history and risk repeating it which would result in another rachni war
2) Kill her = Lose a potential ally & resource against the reapers which would equal greater loss of life

If the game is simply a blue choice means "good" and red means "bad" then there is no risk = no struggle. You can simply turn off your brain and punch blue all the way .... victory!   

I never thought that Bioware set the game with this in mind, but I could be wrong.

Hopefully Bioware has a few surprises for everyone. Only time will tell ....

They actually did sort that out in DA2 - when it comes to character development and tone he/she takes. You can sound kind and diplomatic but make renegade decisions and also vice versa. So, you can be honest, honorable badass or sleezy, rotten to the core sweet talker...  there are many possibilites there for your own character development without being stuck by gathering para/rene points. Your main tone determines how your character will speak, it manages some special options when it comes to charming/intimidating  but it doesn't confine you to limits of para/rene obvious manners, interaction with others in most cases doesn't affect decisions you'll make.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Ok. Here goes:

Paragon and Renegade should be 'equal' in terms of relative content at the very least, with 'flavor' cameos being equal for both sides. There's really no good reason why only sparring people should allow for cameos, because by and large there's no reason that 'spared' people should be the primary reflectors of choices. There are alternatives that can be used.

To take an example, I strongly dislike the Rachni Queen ambassador cameo setup. Not, to clarify, that it isn't good for the Paragons... but because there's no equivalent for the Renegades, even though it would have been painfully simple to do so. Simply a stand in, perhaps some similar no-name from Noveria, who stands by to thank us for our prior help in saving the galaxy from the Rachni breakout. It doesn't even have to be a Noveria corporate suite: it could be some Krogan who lost his father in the Rachni Wars, and he wants to shake Shepard's hands and perhaps offer a trinket of thanks. That's neither hard to write up, nor does it counter the overriding benefit of saving the Rachni (a later ally in ME3).

The Rachni Ambassador cameo is flawed on the basis that there is no reason in that sort of scenario why we can't have alternative cameos to reflect the other side of choices we make.


Another case is the Shiala cameo. If you spared Shiala, she returns. If you didn't, nameless colonist. But... why? There were actual colonists you couldn't kill even if you wanted to: why limit the cameo's personal tie-in to just the person who could die? Shiala's presence on Illium, as a repentant, good intentioned, willful woman who wants to make up for her past harm to the colonists, and has a touch of interest in the Commander, is just as applicable to ANOTHER Feros-character: Elizabeth. Remember her, the young woman who went back into the ExoGeni headquarters to blow the story on the Thorian experiments, and wanted to make up for her actions? Does that sound familiar? Killable persons making cameo returns is fine, but cameos by people who couldn't die should at least be supplementary.

The Feros cameo is flawed in the sense that there's no reason to give a personal tie in to only half the decision-points, and a generic tie-in to the rest, when there's a potential tie-in for the entire audience just sitting there. On Feros, that's Shiala to her Elizabeth counterpart. With Giana Parsini from Noveria, we had the Turian Lorik who could never die.


From Virmire, the absence of Rana from Grunt's loyalty is jarring if you killed her, because Rana actually gave relevant information about the story and context of the mission. At the very least, that's definitely the sort of point you'd want a generic stand in to be present.


Killable cameos have a place, but that should be a small place, and especially when reflecting major choices from the story of the previous game. While's it's better to have a generic stand-in in lieu of a cameo, it's even better to have alternate-standins to reflect both sides of the choices, or even to have the cameo characters be those who can't die regardless. Either of those would provide balance to story-fluff content, and non-killables would be easier to write and plan around as well.

[Okeer voice] I approve!