904 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoWARD23]

thurmanator692 wrote...

nobody should be "punished" but reasonable reactions should follow actions

This

[DPSSOC]

Could we please, please, please stop calling it that.  I generally play Renegade/Renegon, Renegades are not being punished.  I love that getting what I want from my choice is tempered (not nulled) by an undesired consequence.  I sacrificed the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and used the vacuum to push forward a human dominated Council.  I got that but unfortunately the aliens haven't responded in an, "Alright now the right people are in charge" manner and are proving uncooperative.  I.  Love.  It.  Bioware did the Renegade choices right; we got what we wanted but it fell short of the ideal (welcome to life).

The problem, and the reason for the perception of being punished, is that they did Paragon wrong.  There is no tempering of Paragon choices, no price to be paid for their reward, they achieve their ideal scenario.  Should Paragons be punished?  No.  Should the Paragon choices have perhaps not universally worked out in the best possible way?  Certainly.  Now I'm not saying all Paragon choices shouldn't work out in the best possible way but some of them, dare I say most of them, shouldn't.  It makes a decision more interesting, and the results more profound, if you don't always get exactly what you want.

From another thread

DPSSOC wrote...

I don't think either side should be punished but Paragon choices seem to lack weight. For example let's look at Bring Down the Sky (Spoilers if you haven't played). In BDtS the Renegade choice is to sacrifice the hostages and kill Balak, Now whatever your reasoning the game almost immediately forces you to consider the question, "Was it worth it?" We're forced to consider this again when on the Citadel there's a news report about a vigil being held for those lost with a sermon being given by Kate Bowman's father. Renegades made a choice and they had to ask themselves "Was it worth it?"

Near as I can tell Paragon players in that same situation don't. The Paragon choice is to let Balak go to save the hostages, and the issue is never raised that Balak might kill a lot more people than you just saved, "Was it worth it?" In ME2 while Balak is mentioned I believe it's just to say that he's "still at large" but nothing of him having other victims that you weren't there to save.

Or the Council; Renegades kill the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and increase humanity's power. In ME2 we get that; humans are running the show and Sovereign was beaten, but the game also reinforces the cost of that decision; the aliens are not happy with us and a grand total of 10,000 people died on that ship, I killed them. The game throws it all out in front of you and says, "Stack what you've gained against what it cost you; was it worth it?" Now I'm sure there are Renegade choices that don't ask the question but not a single Paragon choice does.

That's why I generally play Renegade; not because I'm pro-human or enjoy being a dick, but because my decisions have consequences that I have to deal with and ask myself "did I make the right choice." I've tried Paragon and I've never had to ask myself that, not once every Paragon choice thus far has come up roses. I let thugs and murderers run free for no reason other than to ease my conscience and not one of them has backslid, not one has made me question or regret my decision.

That's my problem with Paragon choices they don't have any teeth.

Another problem with Paragon choices in ME2 is that with every choice we're going to make there is inevitably going to be a best choice, the one that gives us the greatest profit (not necessarily money).  The problem is that in ME2 this is always the Paragon choice as far as ME1 choices are concerned.  I'm not talking about the little cameos or the boons we get in combat, those are all trivial, what I'm talking about are those decisions that have the potential to effect the plot of the game.  I don't mind Paragon usually being the best choice (in terms of interspecies relations it should be) but a little variety never hurt anyone.

And for anyone thinking, "Well Paragons will get Rachni enemies" be realistic.  Bioware is not going to go through the trouble of developing and implementing a new enemy that some players will never see; we're all getting Rachni enemies.

[ExtremeOne]

DPSSOC wrote...

Could we please, please, please stop calling it that.  I generally play Renegade/Renegon, Renegades are not being punished.  I love that getting what I want from my choice is tempered (not nulled) by an undesired consequence.  I sacrificed the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and used the vacuum to push forward a human dominated Council.  I got that but unfortunately the aliens haven't responded in an, "Alright now the right people are in charge" manner and are proving uncooperative.  I.  Love.  It.  Bioware did the Renegade choices right; we got what we wanted but it fell short of the ideal (welcome to life).

The problem, and the reason for the perception of being punished, is that they did Paragon wrong.  There is no tempering of Paragon choices, no price to be paid for their reward, they achieve their ideal scenario.  Should Paragons be punished?  No.  Should the Paragon choices have perhaps not universally worked out in the best possible way?  Certainly.  Now I'm not saying all Paragon choices shouldn't work out in the best possible way but some of them, dare I say most of them, shouldn't.  It makes a decision more interesting, and the results more profound, if you don't always get exactly what you want.

From another thread

DPSSOC wrote...

I don't think either side should be punished but Paragon choices seem to lack weight. For example let's look at Bring Down the Sky (Spoilers if you haven't played). In BDtS the Renegade choice is to sacrifice the hostages and kill Balak, Now whatever your reasoning the game almost immediately forces you to consider the question, "Was it worth it?" We're forced to consider this again when on the Citadel there's a news report about a vigil being held for those lost with a sermon being given by Kate Bowman's father. Renegades made a choice and they had to ask themselves "Was it worth it?"

Near as I can tell Paragon players in that same situation don't. The Paragon choice is to let Balak go to save the hostages, and the issue is never raised that Balak might kill a lot more people than you just saved, "Was it worth it?" In ME2 while Balak is mentioned I believe it's just to say that he's "still at large" but nothing of him having other victims that you weren't there to save.

Or the Council; Renegades kill the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and increase humanity's power. In ME2 we get that; humans are running the show and Sovereign was beaten, but the game also reinforces the cost of that decision; the aliens are not happy with us and a grand total of 10,000 people died on that ship, I killed them. The game throws it all out in front of you and says, "Stack what you've gained against what it cost you; was it worth it?" Now I'm sure there are Renegade choices that don't ask the question but not a single Paragon choice does.

That's why I generally play Renegade; not because I'm pro-human or enjoy being a dick, but because my decisions have consequences that I have to deal with and ask myself "did I make the right choice." I've tried Paragon and I've never had to ask myself that, not once every Paragon choice thus far has come up roses. I let thugs and murderers run free for no reason other than to ease my conscience and not one of them has backslid, not one has made me question or regret my decision.

That's my problem with Paragon choices they don't have any teeth.

Another problem with Paragon choices in ME2 is that with every choice we're going to make there is inevitably going to be a best choice, the one that gives us the greatest profit (not necessarily money).  The problem is that in ME2 this is always the Paragon choice as far as ME1 choices are concerned.  I'm not talking about the little cameos or the boons we get in combat, those are all trivial, what I'm talking about are those decisions that have the potential to effect the plot of the game.  I don't mind Paragon usually being the best choice (in terms of interspecies relations it should be) but a little variety never hurt anyone.

And for anyone thinking, "Well Paragons will get Rachni enemies" be realistic.  Bioware is not going to go through the trouble of developing and implementing a new enemy that some players will never see; we're all getting Rachni enemies.

   



Oh we know Bioware is forcing us all to walk down the paragon path in 3. but while I am forced to do that I will bring a era of disobedience to the alliance that makes Saren look like a jr high issue . what I mean I will do every renegade option I can do in ME 3 

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Oh we know Bioware is forcing us all to walk down the paragon path in 3. but while I am forced to do that I will bring a era of disobedience to the alliance that makes Saren look like a jr high issue . what I mean I will do every renegade option I can do in ME 3 

Yes, petty and petulant. We already know.

[Aumata]

DPSSOC wrote...

I don't think either side should be punished but Paragon choices seem to lack weight. For example let's look at Bring Down the Sky (Spoilers if you haven't played). In BDtS the Renegade choice is to sacrifice the hostages and kill Balak, Now whatever your reasoning the game almost immediately forces you to consider the question, "Was it worth it?" We're forced to consider this again when on the Citadel there's a news report about a vigil being held for those lost with a sermon being given by Kate Bowman's father. Renegades made a choice and they had to ask themselves "Was it worth it?"

Near as I can tell Paragon players in that same situation don't. The Paragon choice is to let Balak go to save the hostages, and the issue is never raised that Balak might kill a lot more people than you just saved, "Was it worth it?" In ME2 while Balak is mentioned I believe it's just to say that he's "still at large" but nothing of him having other victims that you weren't there to save.

Or the Council; Renegades kill the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and increase humanity's power. In ME2 we get that; humans are running the show and Sovereign was beaten, but the game also reinforces the cost of that decision; the aliens are not happy with us and a grand total of 10,000 people died on that ship, I killed them. The game throws it all out in front of you and says, "Stack what you've gained against what it cost you; was it worth it?" Now I'm sure there are Renegade choices that don't ask the question but not a single Paragon choice does.

That's why I generally play Renegade; not because I'm pro-human or enjoy being a dick, but because my decisions have consequences that I have to deal with and ask myself "did I make the right choice." I've tried Paragon and I've never had to ask myself that, not once every Paragon choice thus far has come up roses. I let thugs and murderers run free for no reason other than to ease my conscience and not one of them has backslid, not one has made me question or regret my decision.

That's my problem with Paragon choices they don't have any teeth.

You sir, made me want to do a renegade playthrough for my first Shepard playthrough for ME3, though I was flirting between the two as it is.  Now for me to figure out what the hell the classes gonna be, Adept or Vanguard?

[Reapinger]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Indeed, well said. The reason I don't play Paragon characters anymore isn't because I am so ideologically opposed to it, it is because Paragon is not interesting. There is no tension, no drama.

Wouldn't go that far, but such is the life of not being a dick to everyone. Just sayin'

[Seboist]

Reapinger wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Indeed, well said. The reason I don't play Paragon characters anymore isn't because I am so ideologically opposed to it, it is because Paragon is not interesting. There is no tension, no drama.

Wouldn't go that far, but such is the life of not being a dick to everyone. Just sayin'

Playing Renegade =/= being a dick to everyone.

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Indeed, well said. The reason I don't play Paragon characters anymore isn't because I am so ideologically opposed to it, it is because Paragon is not interesting. There is no tension, no drama.

I did one Pure Paragon playthrough through both games and it was extremely boring as hell. It was downright lame to "talk-jutsu" criminals into being model citizens.

[AlphaDormante]

tjzsf wrote...

Problem: less content for doing a renegade action *is* a response that discourages the player from making certain decisions. Especially in ME2, where your exp comes solely from doing missions and sidequests. Killed Shiala in ME1? Now you don't get a sidequest that could have bumped you over another level before the suicide mission.

Yes, the in-game consequence makes sense logically, but the meta doesn't, if we are going with the premise that both paragons and renegades should have access to roughly the same amount of playing experience,instead of one side being given less content for sticking to their alignment.

Paragons getting more content makes enough sense in meta.

Paragon: solve everything with as little violence as possible. Paragons often work a little bit harder to get their way, and as a result, have more things on their to-do list.
Renegade: destroy everything in the way. Renegades don't have to waste their time with the Paragons' compromises and conditions, and can rush right on through to the immediate job.

Honestly, as someone who plays both Paragons and Renegades equally, I never understood this. Paragons speak mediation and compromise. Renegades speak speed and
efficiency. Logically speaking, if you want more content, take the
longer path. You get out of your playing style exactly what you put in.

Modifié par AlphaDormante, 12 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[Reapinger]

Seboist wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Indeed, well said. The reason I don't play Paragon characters anymore isn't because I am so ideologically opposed to it, it is because Paragon is not interesting. There is no tension, no drama.

Wouldn't go that far, but such is the life of not being a dick to everyone. Just sayin'

Playing Renegade =/= being a dick to everyone.

Paying Paragon =/= not being a dick to anyone. We can both use this logic that doesn't apply to eachothers comments. Just because I said one does not preclude the other. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I think Bioware could've made times where aggressive or conservative actions were the correct choice in that scenario but from a metagaming perspective, I do appreciate the "all Paragon = best ending" formula if I want to see the absolute best ending intentionally.

Would be confusing if I had to use a variety of choices, so they kept it simple.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 mai 2011 - 06:36 .

[Dracotamer]

Yeah, some choices should bite you in the but.

[aimlessgun]

AlphaDormante wrote...
Paragons getting more content makes enough sense in meta.

Paragon: solve everything with as little violence as possible. Paragons often work a little bit harder to get their way, and as a result, have more things on their to-do list.
Renegade: destroy everything in the way. Renegades don't have to waste their time with the Paragons' compromises and conditions, and can rush right on through to the immediate job.

Honestly, as someone who plays both Paragons and Renegades equally, I never understood this. Paragons speak mediation and compromise. Renegades speak speed and
efficiency. Logically speaking, if you want more content, take the
longer path. You get out of your playing style exactly what you put in.

Big disconnect in viewpoint here from many renegades.

You say "paragons do more work, renegades do less".

We say "paragons choose the less effective but more moral path, renegades choose the more effective but less moral path." 

Both of those are false in gameplay terms, because neither side does more work, and both sides are frankly equally effective. Unless you're counting the 2 renegade interrupts that kill an enemy or two, but really who doesn't take those

In any case, I find the idea that renegade = less work offensive. Renegades make the moral sacrifices they do because those paths seems like it has the best odds of success. That's why it is so upsetting for paragons to enjoy greater or equal "success" while still keeping their soul clean.

[AlphaDormante]

aimlessgun wrote...

AlphaDormante wrote...
Paragons getting more content makes enough sense in meta.

Paragon: solve everything with as little violence as possible. Paragons often work a little bit harder to get their way, and as a result, have more things on their to-do list.
Renegade: destroy everything in the way. Renegades don't have to waste their time with the Paragons' compromises and conditions, and can rush right on through to the immediate job.

Honestly, as someone who plays both Paragons and Renegades equally, I never understood this. Paragons speak mediation and compromise. Renegades speak speed and
efficiency. Logically speaking, if you want more content, take the
longer path. You get out of your playing style exactly what you put in.

Big disconnect in viewpoint here from many renegades.

You say "paragons do more work, renegades do less".

We say "paragons choose the less effective but more moral path, renegades choose the more effective but less moral path." 

Both of those are false in gameplay terms, because neither side does more work, and both sides are frankly equally effective. Unless you're counting the 2 renegade interrupts that kill an enemy or two, but really who doesn't take those

In any case, I find the idea that renegade = less work offensive. Renegades make the moral sacrifices they do because those paths seems like it has the best odds of success. That's why it is so upsetting for paragons to enjoy greater or equal "success" while still keeping their soul clean.

Consented. I hadn't meant to make it sound like Paragons are hard-working while Renegades are lazy oafs (looking back, that was indeed my wording) and I apologize for that.

While I stand by my belief that nobody is being "punished" by the developers, I also consent that Paragons getting extra EXP that Renegades can't make up is rather strange. But I wouldn't call it a punishment before saying it was probably an oversight.

[hawat333]

No one should be punished for making a decision in a plot-relevant scenario. Either you save or kill the Rachni, there should be only consequences. Actually the Rachni turning on humanity would be a reward too - something happens because of your actions.
If you mean that kind of punishment, hell, why not?

Punishment in my terms is what they did with ME2. If you've killed someone in ME1, there was less content. That should not happen in ME3.

A good example is Alpha Protocol which rewarded you for every choice you've made. The story growth richer equally regardless if you kill or spare someone.

By the way, the allmighty, ever-returning Paragon versus Renegate debate is pointless in my opinion. Why? Because every real character in the ME verse is a mixture of the two sides. There are surely pure Paragon or Renegade players around, but with only one side to experience, and no mixed characters they miss out half the experience.
On top of that every Paragon and Renegade decision can be logically explained, can be reasoned for, so it goes way beyond right or wrong. That's just my opinion though.

[Undertone]

The argument that it's okay for renegades to have less content from meta perspective is one I always find incredibly shallow. Me and a lot others have argued consistently against it.

It's very simple - We know dead people can't come back for a cameo...I think I've said this cajilion times to the point I must resist the urge to get super sarcastic or just outright troll.

Look at KotoR - you kill Juhani and her friend meets you up at Korriban as a Sith to get revenge for your actions. You are saying Fist or any of those other criminals/gooks doesn't have friends, associates, business partners, brothers, sisters, family?

The term "punished" was invented by some high-bound ultra idealistic paragon that wants to see rainbows and bunnies and pink everywhere. Renegades never wanted paragons to be punished - just have appropriate consequences. This was never about the rationality behind a paragon or renegade choice - all are equally valid. This was always about said consequences.

As it stands we have a blue button to fix all.

Not to mention the morality system in ME2 completely **** up with grey players who don't want to follow either extremity.

Modifié par Undertone, 12 mai 2011 - 12:12 .

[wright1978]

I expect good and bad consequences to happen for various paragon and renegade decisions.
Rewriting Geth seems an obvious paragon one that could go badly wrong.

Think the morality system of ME2 was great. It was perfectly possible to build up both paragon and renegade points along the way but rightly you can't play 100% renegade for the entire game and then expect to get paragon conversation options.

[Slayer299]

wright1978 wrote...

I expect good and bad consequences to happen for various paragon and renegade decisions.
Rewriting Geth seems an obvious paragon one that could go badly wrong.

Think the morality system of ME2 was great. It was perfectly possible to build up both paragon and renegade points along the way but rightly you can't play 100% renegade for the entire game and then expect to get paragon conversation options.

I don't see how re-writing the Geth was Paragon, because it is in effect brainwashing and last time I checked that's not a "Paragon" thing, but that's something else. Oh, and the morality system of ME2 was *not* great and infact punished players for not choosing P/R over the other.

It shouldn't be "punishing" for either Paragon or Renegade, it should be a matter of consequences for each choice, i.e. - save Fist in ME, when you run into him again in ME2 he tries having you killed. Kill Fist and in ME2 one of his associates steps in to try.  Consequences are the key, not punishment for one path over the other.

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

I pretty much agree with this, I'd rather see roughly equal content for both Renegades and Paragons than have choices simply result in an event either happening or not happening.

It makes sense that the content would often be different in tone, of course.  For example, if a Paragon rescues someone they might get to see them getting on with their life, while the Renegade that let the person die might encounter an angry family member.  I don't see it as a problem if one choice gets a more negative encounter (like that angry family member or an escaped killer) while the other gets a more positive encounter (like the gratitude of someone you saved or signs of progress after a disaster), I just like to get content for all of my characters.  I don't feel bad if my Renegade is hated by people since most Renegades are there to get the job done, not to make friends.  At the end of the day, the Renegade character will still feel they did the right thing.  Similarly, a Paragon will feel they did the right thing even if they let a criminal go and later find they're still a criminal, they gave them a chance to turn away from crime and it was worth the risk to them.

aimlessgun wrote...

Renegades make the moral sacrifices they do because those paths seems like it has the best odds of success. That's why it is so upsetting for paragons to enjoy greater or equal "success" while still keeping their soul clean.

I think it's best to seperate the meta-game elements of knowing that things would have worked out whichever option you chose.  As the hero of the game, it makes sense that you'll complete every mission and get the job done.  When you choose between Paragon and Renegade options you're usually choosing between cynicism and idealism and it seems fair enough that the world follows those choices.  When you choose Paragon you usually get the idealistic outcome, such as a former criminal reforming when given a second chance, while choosing Renegade gives you a more cynical outcome, such as people hating you for allowing casualties when eliminating a potentially greater threat.  Having both storylines makes for an interesting and varied experience, it's not the only way to achieve that but it mostly works for what it is.

Basically I'm in favour of interesting choices and interesting consequences.  I'm happy enough if that sometimes means that my character made a "bad" choice or has to deal with "bad" consequences, as long as it's more content to experience.

[Ieldra]

I agree there should be appropriate consequences for every side. But...there's the catch: realistic consequences.

Take the Rachni decision: if you take the Paragon decision and spare the queen, you get either a new ally (I'll name that the +1 consequence) or a new enemy (the -1 consequence). This is more or less objective, since in the face of the Reaper threat any ally is better than no ally, so even for a pro-human Renegade this would be a positive consequence. The Renegade kills the queen and get the 0 decision. 0 - because it is better than getting the enemy (-1) but worse than getting the ally (+1).

What I'm saying is this: summed up over all decisions in the game, Paragons and Renegades should get a 0 at the end. Sometimes Renegade might get the +1 instead of the 0, sometimes they might get the -1, and the same for Paragons. But as it is now, Paragons always get the +1 and Renegades get the 0 - better than the worst kind of consequence you can imagine from the Paragon decision, but since that worst kind never materializes, Renegade is not a viable playstyle. Which is highly implausible as well as one-sided story design.

[Zulu_DFA]

Paragons will be punished...

With additional content to fight!

BUUUGGZ!!!

[Skarwael]

The galaxy can burn so long as they have a clear conscience.

Selfish paragons.

[Xeranx]

Undertone wrote...

The argument that it's okay for renegades to have less content from meta perspective is one I always find incredibly shallow. Me and a lot others have argued consistently against it.

It's very simple - We know dead people can't come back for a cameo...I think I've said this cajilion times to the point I must resist the urge to get super sarcastic or just outright troll.

Look at KotoR - you kill Juhani and her friend meets you up at Korriban as a Sith to get revenge for your actions. You are saying Fist or any of those other criminals/gooks doesn't have friends, associates, business partners, brothers, sisters, family?

The term "punished" was invented by some high-bound ultra idealistic paragon that wants to see rainbows and bunnies and pink everywhere. Renegades never wanted paragons to be punished - just have appropriate consequences. This was never about the rationality behind a paragon or renegade choice - all are equally valid. This was always about said consequences.

As it stands we have a blue button to fix all.

Not to mention the morality system in ME2 completely **** up with grey players who don't want to follow either extremity.

The bold section is entirely false, and reeks of contempt for an individual (or individuals) who took what was expressed by renegade players as a want to see paragon players suffer.  The many posts I've seen renegade players post have expressed a want for actions to "blow up in their faces".  That's been mentioned several times over.  To think that such a person wants consequences for actions made rather than to punish a particular set of players because you aren't getting the content they are (or equivalent) is ridiculous in light of part in quotes above.  Had they said they want consequences for actions made rather than they want "paragon decisions to blow up" in the faces of paragon players, it would be a very different thing.  

It's called tonality and as long as the tone seems to be "it's unfair that renegade people get less content so paragon decisions should fail" people will see it as renegade players wanting paragon players to be "punished" for their gameplay choices.  Ask for consequences for actions rather than point out that renegade players get reduced content and you won't have much of an argument.

Edit: As further evidence, we have the thread "So the people who chose not to blow up the base get slapped in the face?"  The title alone says renegade players are being punished and that's been the mindset from every post I've witnessed from a renegade player.  Once again, how do I or anyone else not think that the message is "paragons should be punished"?

Modifié par Xeranx, 12 mai 2011 - 09:27 .

[sevalaricgirl]

I was paragon and killed the council. It was very interesting to hear what people said in ME2 though I hear you get to see the council if you are total renegade and it's an all human council. So I think the people who really lose are paragades and renagons. I play the character as I would choose myself. Sometimes those are bad and sometimes good. Like one of my paragon Shepards saved the collector base because she felt it would lead to technology to fight the reapers. She didn't trust TIM but felt that any technology was worth the risk. She's the same one who killed the council.