904 réponses à ce sujet

[Pride Demon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If the consequences of the big, story-affecting decisions are not balanced, then it feels as if the universe - fate, if you want - is favoriing Paragons. And that should not be so.

I understand completely actually, and I agree completely with this...
What I was arguing for in my first post was balance (so each decision is BOTH good and bad), I was only saying that balance doesn't mean "but those others should be punished!" or "Rachni queen should totally blow up on para!shep face!/ Collector base should totally blow up on rene!shep face!" like many seem to think.
It means every decision should be viable and have unique sets of positives and negatives (so there's no favoritism), which I believe is what you argue for too... ;P

The last part of my previous post was merely pointing out that there's a wide array of choices (even if they are not major) that from a roleplay perspective can favour rene!sheps. After all if Thane's son is about to kill someone and Miranda's sister about to be kidnapped roleplay dictates your sheps should feel the need to hurry and rene does hurry! Lol!

Anyway point is I agee with you on the balance issues, like the Illusive Man said "Our methods may be different, but our goals are not..." ;P
Edit. Thinking about it Samara says something similar too... XD

Modifié par Pride Demon, 13 mai 2011 - 02:38 .

[Ieldra]

I think we mostly agree, but just to clarify:

I'm talking about overall balance, not necessarily within the consequences of any single decision - that would also be unrealistic, if every decision was a zero sum game. If leaving the Rachni queen alive has mostly positive consequences, that's ok with me as long as some other big Paragon decision backfires so badly that there's more bad than good about it.

The only decision where I would be greatly annoyed if it had no or only a minor benefit is keeping the Collector Base. Because I think analyzing Reaper technology to close the technology gap should be one of the *major* avenues of success.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 mai 2011 - 03:24 .

[Seboist]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You don't understand where I'm coming from:

It's the big decisions that matter. Who cares if some minor battle is a little easier through a Renegade interrupt, except that it makes you look badass? Who cares, actually, about the *game's* difficulty for the player? That doesn't matter one bit. Who cares if can intimidate Kelham, that's just a style choice affecting my character. It's good for my roleplaying and I appreciate that the choices are there, but it doesn't make a whit of difference for the big picture. OK, maybe killing that Turian or not does, but you know what I mean.

It's the big decisions, the main plot decisions I want to be balanced - the Council and the Rachni in ME1, the Collector Base in ME2. The decisions affecting whole species like what you do at Tali's trial, or if you brainwash or destroy the Heretics. And it's the decisions the consequences of which Shepard can NOT counter by my being more badass in combat. For what does an additional enemy for a squad of three count if the homeworld of the species hangs in the balance? The big picture decisions are in a league of their own, a hundred useful Renegade interrupts cannot counter the consequences of a single big picture- decision with a one-sided advantage for the Paragon side.

I'm not yet claiming that Paragon is favored overall, but it all depends on the balance in the consequences of the big decisions.

As for the Collector Base decision: if you keep it, back on the Normandy, NO ONE is happy with your decision, no one accepts it as a necessary one. Only the comments of the team members you take with you to the final boss, in the conversation with TIM, show any diversity of opinion. And those you only hear if you take certain conversation options. All in all it feels as if Bioware is telling me not to keep the base.

If the consequences of the big, story-affecting decisions are not balanced, then it feels as if the universe - fate, if you want - is favoriing Paragons. And that should not be so.

The whole squad reaction to keeping the CB reminds me of the game being so biased against Shepard trying to side with Charles Saracino in the Terra Firma side quest in ME1.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

There is a bias toward Paragon choices, no doubt about it.

[glasgoo21]

I agree, the ideal shepard should be a grey one. Nor full paragon nor renegade should be considerd ideal

[Drachasor]

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.

Modifié par Drachasor, 15 mai 2011 - 09:22 .

[tjzsf]

I daresay that part of the problem is also that Renegade got flanderized as "[going]around making other races angry and belittling them." A properly practical/pragmatic Renegade should know that burning bridges is really stupid and not doing that, which too often is not present in the choices.

[DPSSOC]

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 and it does.  Nobody has a problem with that, or at least they shouldn't, but a Paragon running around being a naive bleeding heart taking massive leaps of faith on career criminals should also reap the proper consequences of such behaviour wouldn't you say?  That's the problem Renegades are beaten (occasionally literally) over the head with "Look what you've done."  I said it before Renegades are regularly encouraged by the game to reconsider their decisions and reassess if what they gained was worth it.  Paragons never have to go through this, Paragons are never encouraged to think, "Maybe I made a mistake there." it doesn't happen.

The only Paragon choice that comes close is Elnora and I'll give you 10:1 odds that if you let her live she'll show up in ME3 running an orphanage or nursing the cutest kittens in the galaxy back to health or something along those lines.

[Seboist]

DPSSOC 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 and it does.  Nobody has a problem with that, or at least they shouldn't, but a Paragon running around being a naive bleeding heart taking massive leaps of faith on career criminals should also reap the proper consequences of such behaviour wouldn't you say?  That's the problem Renegades are beaten (occasionally literally) over the head with "Look what you've done."  I said it before Renegades are regularly encouraged by the game to reconsider their decisions and reassess if what they gained was worth it.  Paragons never have to go through this, Paragons are never encouraged to think, "Maybe I made a mistake there." it doesn't happen.

The only Paragon choice that comes close is Elnora and I'll give you 10:1 odds that if you let her live she'll show up in ME3 running an orphanage or nursing the cutest kittens in the galaxy back to health or something along those lines.

lol I've thought the same about that too. Just like how Shepard used talk-jutsu to turn an unrepentant career criminal like Helena Blake into a social worker.

[Dave of Canada]

I was thinking to myself at the Rachni: What if they are playing me? What if the Rachni Queen is simply manipulating me to try and release her, what if her intentions are not noble? Deciding that it's safer to kill her than allow her to live, I drop the acid on her.

I was thinking to myself at the end of Mass Effect 1: Do I have enough resources to save the Council? I decided the lives of three people were unimportant compared to the entire galaxy. I sacrificed them but chose the neutral option, I didn't want the Council to die but felt it had to be done.

I ignored the metagame aspect of saving the Council having no consequences, Paragons also required the ability to beat the game. I understand that. No matter, I decided to import my Renegade into ME2.

What do I find myself with?
The entire galaxy absolutely hates me for having destroyed the Council, not only that but they hate humanity. Shopkeepers insult me to my face.
No mention from the Rachni Queen, that's good. Sort of, I would've liked a message from somebody at the lab or something but I take what I'm given.

After all of this, I decided to reload back to my Paragon character. He doesn't do anything but pick the Paragon options because I have difficulty to rationalize how he's supposed to think, but I always pick the top left option when given the choice. I import him into ME2.

What do I find myself with?
The entire galaxy absolutely loves Shepard, I feel like I'm being highfived by everybody on the street. Shopkeepers tell me I'm the greatest.
Oh hey, that Asari is waving at me! Oh hey, it's the Rachni Queen. She's giving me allies, that's pretty cool.

It isn't about burning bridges as a Renegade, it's that idealism is worshipped and praised by everybody. It isn't about choices and consequences in the current system, it's about if you want a happy ending or bad ending. Both games have praised consequences but we've seen nothing of the sort when it comes to Paragons, it's always the Renegade getting the short end of the stick.

I expected this to change in Mass Effect 3, maybe having the Collector Base having ramifications against Paragons (like the Council was for the Renegade) but it seems to have been blown outside the window once again. The writing in the ending scolds Renegades for their decision, praises Paragons and with the new previews coming out we have some of them almost outright calling Renegades stupid for their decision.

How is this balanced? How is this a game of choices and consequences when nothing of the sort exists for the other side of the bar? Why should somebody be Renegade instead of Paragon when they do decisions?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 16 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[Seboist]

What especially makes the keeping the CB decision so infuriating is that EVERY squadmate who favored keeping it has a complete mind crush and scolds Shepard for being an idiot after the fact.

[Dave of Canada]

Seboist wrote...

What especially makes the keeping the CB decision so infuriating is that EVERY squadmate who favored keeping it has a complete mind crush and scolds Shepard for being an idiot after the fact.

That's one of those moments where I lost respect for the writers a bit.

[Labrev]

Seboist wrote...

What especially makes the keeping the CB decision so infuriating is that EVERY squadmate who favored keeping it has a complete mind crush and scolds Shepard for being an idiot after the fact.

Maybe they change their mind after thinking it over a bit more? But you're right, it was pretty unfairly one-sided.

ME1 had the opposite problem. Squadmates have different opinions based on who's in the squad. In one career, Ashley was adament that the rachni-queen must be killed. In a different one (Wrex in squad) she became conscious of genocide and re-iterated that concern back on ship.

ME2 was better about it, but if they really valued opposing opinions, they should have kept them afterwards.

[Seboist]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Seboist wrote...

What especially makes the keeping the CB decision so infuriating is that EVERY squadmate who favored keeping it has a complete mind crush and scolds Shepard for being an idiot after the fact.

Maybe they change their mind after thinking it over a bit more? But you're right, it was pretty unfairly one-sided.

ME1 had the opposite problem. Squadmates have different opinions based on who's in the squad. In one career, Ashley was adament that the rachni-queen must be killed. In a different one (Wrex in squad) she became conscious of genocide and re-iterated that concern back on ship.

ME2 was better about it, but if they really valued opposing opinions, they should have kept them afterwards.

Expressing some doubt over it afterwords wouldn't have been too bad if the whole thing wasn't so one sided. I can't recall anybody complaining about the CB being destroyed in my pure paragon playthrough.

[lerpumpkinzero]

What is this extremist bull**** I keep reading (although I must note, towards the end of this board it isn't as bad)? As if either renegade or paragon options are more legitimate than the other. If they are both included in the game, they should both be considered completely viable and BALANCED paths. The argument that players should not be "rewarded" for being dicks doesn't make sense to me, since each path is presented as EQUAL in the game. The problem is that there really aren't any consequences to being Paragon, effectively dumbing down the decisions you make in the game. It shouldn't be as obvious as it is in ME2. Why? Forget gameplay for a moment - it's bad writing. If you play 100% of either, you should NOT be able to please EVERYONE, which seems to be the case with what we've been given so far in the series.

Also, while ME3 might bring about consequences for paragon decisions, it is just no fun to not see any significant, repeat: significant, benefits for renegades in an entire THIRD of the series. To ask an entire section of players to just wait-to-get-theirs doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps if it were a movie or something, but as a gaming experience, it doesn't make sense. You cannot NEGLECT one side for an entire game. Some could even argue that paragons are neglected for the lack of consequences for their decisions.

I question the argument that paragon is canon, as well. I mean, sure, there are choices that have been made that are canon in the eyes of developers. Yes, there is a canon path, but in a game like this, I do not think it matters as much. Because saves are imported from previous games, the world changes in response to those decisions. So, is the argument that paragon is canon and therefore better or more legitimate (in a gamer's perception of the world) correct? Does it really matter? In the sense of gameplay and the lack of balance, obviously yes, but in terms of this arguing back and forth over which choice is right, not really, right? The personal perception of the gamer is what really matters in a game where choices can carry over. If you have always perceived Shep as female and the game allows you to choose that, thenthat is the "truth" in the gamer's experience. Really, ANY portrayal of the gaming world (that carries over and is allowed by the game) is the "truth". Why? Because it happens in the game and that is the beauty of this game. It is not like a movie or a book. The player gets to decide.

On another note, what the hell is with the senseless insults on a renegade or paragon player's character, as if their decisions in-game ACTUALLY determines their personality and morality in real life. It clearly isn't the case, since a good number of paragon players have displayed dickish qualities in their flaming and outright inability to actually discuss the issue (and that isn't to say renegade players have not been dicks). Although, I have to acknowledge the nature of internet forums... but wtf? Really? Ugh, I suppose I shouldn't expect anything of the internet, but god damn it is irritating. Are people seriously playing through the game only choosing one side? Why would you even do that to yourself (though everyone is allowed to play how they want), since you are CUTTING OUT parts of the game for yourself. I love going through the game as both, just to see what happens.

One last note on the cameos and the complaint about lack of content. I think it is legitimate request to see that your decisions, paragon or renegade, create reactions. Because renegade actions often lead to the death of the cameo character, then the reaction should not come in the form of a character, and I don't mean emails. The reaction does not need to come from a character we have met before (a cameo), but could easily be someone related to the decision. What if renegade Shep was attacked or berated for a decision to kill someone by the victims family or friends. This has been said before, but I think people on the opposing arguments are getting caught up on the word "cameo". This renegade confrontation would not be a cameo because the character would not be from the first game. Ultimately, it's not about cameos - it is about REACTION. You can argue that emails are reaction enough, but who doesn't love to see the character and hear the voice acting? Are you really telling me that emails are better than character interactions? It is not about REWARD or PUNISHMENT for either side. Neither are good for the gaming experience and as I said (as well as many others), there should be a balance between the two. When it comes to roleplaying/writing, I think reactions can be a little less balanced. Does renegade Shep act like a dick? Yeah, and it would be nice to see a reaction from that, if not in the same places as paragon cameos, then at least in the same quantity.

Oof, well, I think I said everything I needed to say...

Modifié par lerpumpkinzero, 17 mai 2011 - 06:48 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

"The goal is to reward gamers for playing how they want to, not to penalize them by withholding content. 'It'll be different, but not worse,' Hudson says. "That's part of the fun of being able to do different playthroughs. It's not that something's there, and then it's missing. You get to see what's different, and what is there, and what changes."

-Casey Hudson on Mass Effect 3 (GI)


If that was their goal from the start I'd have to say they haven't been doing a very good job.  Here's hoping they make something happen with that in the final one.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 17 mai 2011 - 05:52 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"The goal is to reward gamers for playing how they want to, not to penalize them by withholding content. 'It'll be different, but not worse,' Hudson says. "That's part of the fun of being able to do different playthroughs. It's not that something's there, and then it's missing. You get to see what's different, and what is there, and what changes."

-Casey Hudson on Mass Effect 3 (GI)


If that was their goal from the start I'd have to say they haven't been doing a very good job.  Here's hoping they make something happen with that in the final one.

That quote sort of confirms what I and others have been saying about Rachni Husks showing up no matter what.

[Manic Sheep]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"The goal is to reward gamers for playing how they want to, not to penalize them by withholding content. 'It'll be different, but not worse,' Hudson says. "That's part of the fun of being able to do different playthroughs. It's not that something's there, and then it's missing. You get to see what's different, and what is there, and what changes."

-Casey Hudson on Mass Effect 3 (GI)


If that was their goal from the start I'd have to say they haven't been doing a very good job . Here's hoping they make something happen with that in the final one.

Good, hopefully things change for ME3.
When people say things like "renegades get easier fights" or "renegades won't have to fight the rachni " which I doubt is going to happen, they are not going to remove and entire enemy and there is a news report about attempts to clone rachni in ME2 I think. Either way they will be there. The problem with those two things is they are not really what I would consider a "reward" (unless the fight was tedious but if the fight is tedious bioware has another problem). Your reward is a less challenging and ultimately less rewarding fight? Um thanks? If I wanted the game to be easier I would lower the difficulty setting. Removing things is not a reward. Rewards for the player IMO are extra things, items, upgrades, extra quests, continuation of a story arc and your decisions having a payoff in the actual plot. Even added content thru negatives consequences (a new strong enemy type, a quest to fix something that was your fault ect) is a bonus for the player. Paragons and renegades should be roughly equal in terms of added content, tho of course there doesn’t need to be renegade and paragon versions of every cameo they can have different ones.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 17 mai 2011 - 08:26 .

[outmane]

ME2 ending with everyone taking a paragon stance does seem kinda broken to me. Even to my paragon sheps.. (common Miranda you cant be okay with that just cause i helped your sister.. You shot the dude who helped you escape your father and now you side with me ?)

but just to bring an other view to that question...

maybe selecting all renagade options or all paragon options all the time is the real problem here. Its pretty much as stupid to pretend you want to help everyone and save everyone and be their best friend ( Miranda and Jack i love you both equally, my poor poor girls its not your fault !) then it is stupid to kill everyone all the time and be rude to all your squaddies just because you can. There are always paragon and renegade options availible for all situations because well... its a role playing game. That does not mean you have to choose the red/blue line all the time, they are simply availible so the player can craft his/her storie. No wonder ultra paragon Shep is seen as an hypocrit and ultra renegade Shep as a selfish brutish ******. They both give very bad characters that id never pay to see in a movie.


quick exemple: My renegade MaleShep kept the CB because hes humancentris but my renegade FemShep did not. Shes all about distroying anything that is dangerous because she has no faith in ppl acting responsably (she destroyed the rachni, didnt save the destiny ascension, distroyed the genophage cure... and distroyed the CB) To her it just makes sense but shes not less of a renegade character.

[Tripedius]

I always thought the Paragon/Renegade choices would result in a pro-human and pro-diversity kind of storyline. The difference in ME3 would be the galaxy beating the Reapers or Humans beating the Reapers resulting in the same species balance as kept by the council or a human dominated universe were alienlife is rarer.

ME2 however failed on that part. Playing Renegade results in less cameo's/extra's than Paragon. You either have the mentioned 'aliens love' or ' aliens hate' Shepard. You can see the council when saved, but not the new council. You meet Gianna but no representative of Exogeni, Terra Firma or any other shady character you didn't kill. I think that part of the problem is all the killing being done by renegades. It kills of a lot of more prominent characters even in ME2. Shiala for instance also could have been turned in for research and the quest on Ilium could have been about turning her in after she escaped or something. Sidonis, Talid, Vido, Maelon, Niket, Ronald Taylor, and Aresh will definately not return if played as full renegade. Which would be bad if Sidonis could give his life for Garrus.

In short I think you can only have less as a renegade fresh out of ME1/2. Even if letting the Rachni live was a bad decision, I would still have more (more varied) enemies which is too me better as the game will still be beatable.

My conclusion would be that playing renegade is good for a game, but paragon is better for the series. Ofc this undermines one of the supposedly strong points of the ME-series, but maybe there is hope for ME3. Having the illusive man help you for instance if renegade and not caring if paragon would be great (ofc assuming seperate rogue cerberus / Illusive man) and a human dominated victory on the Reapers would also be a nice diversion from what the paragon is shaping up to be.

[Seboist]

Niket dies regardless of what you do. If Miranda doesn't kill him the Asari merc captian does.

[lerpumpkinzero]

Tripedius wrote...

I always thought the Paragon/Renegade choices would result in a pro-human and pro-diversity kind of storyline. The difference in ME3 would be the galaxy beating the Reapers or Humans beating the Reapers resulting in the same species balance as kept by the council or a human dominated universe were alienlife is rarer.

ME2 however failed on that part. Playing Renegade results in less cameo's/extra's than Paragon. You either have the mentioned 'aliens love' or ' aliens hate' Shepard. You can see the council when saved, but not the new council. You meet Gianna but no representative of Exogeni, Terra Firma or any other shady character you didn't kill. I think that part of the problem is all the killing being done by renegades. It kills of a lot of more prominent characters even in ME2. Shiala for instance also could have been turned in for research and the quest on Ilium could have been about turning her in after she escaped or something. Sidonis, Talid, Vido, Maelon, Niket, Ronald Taylor, and Aresh will definately not return if played as full renegade. Which would be bad if Sidonis could give his life for Garrus.

In short I think you can only have less as a renegade fresh out of ME1/2. Even if letting the Rachni live was a bad decision, I would still have more (more varied) enemies which is too me better as the game will still be beatable.

My conclusion would be that playing renegade is good for a game, but paragon is better for the series. Ofc this undermines one of the supposedly strong points of the ME-series, but maybe there is hope for ME3. Having the illusive man help you for instance if renegade and not caring if paragon would be great (ofc assuming seperate rogue cerberus / Illusive man) and a human dominated victory on the Reapers would also be a nice diversion from what the paragon is shaping up to be.

I disagree that bioware couldn't have done more to add cameo/reaction content for the renegade path, however, I think you made a really good point when you pointed out that the renegade path ends up killing a lot of characters. I hadn't even noticed. While I don't think it is impossible to insert some sort of character reaction for what would have been cameos, by opening up renegade decisions to more than just killing, it certainly opens up options for writing and less predictability in the game.

I think ME2 did better than ME1 in that aspect, given the Collector base and Legion/Geth decisions. Crossing my fingers.

[InvincibleHero]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I was thinking to myself at the Rachni: What if they are playing me? What if the Rachni Queen is simply manipulating me to try and release her, what if her intentions are not noble? Deciding that it's safer to kill her than allow her to live, I drop the acid on her.

I was thinking to myself at the end of Mass Effect 1: Do I have enough resources to save the Council? I decided the lives of three people were unimportant compared to the entire galaxy. I sacrificed them but chose the neutral option, I didn't want the Council to die but felt it had to be done.

I ignored the metagame aspect of saving the Council having no consequences, Paragons also required the ability to beat the game. I understand that. No matter, I decided to import my Renegade into ME2.

What do I find myself with?
The entire galaxy absolutely hates me for having destroyed the Council, not only that but they hate humanity. Shopkeepers insult me to my face.
No mention from the Rachni Queen, that's good. Sort of, I would've liked a message from somebody at the lab or something but I take what I'm given.

After all of this, I decided to reload back to my Paragon character. He doesn't do anything but pick the Paragon options because I have difficulty to rationalize how he's supposed to think, but I always pick the top left option when given the choice. I import him into ME2.

What do I find myself with?
The entire galaxy absolutely loves Shepard, I feel like I'm being highfived by everybody on the street. Shopkeepers tell me I'm the greatest.
Oh hey, that Asari is waving at me! Oh hey, it's the Rachni Queen. She's giving me allies, that's pretty cool.

It isn't about burning bridges as a Renegade, it's that idealism is worshipped and praised by everybody. It isn't about choices and consequences in the current system, it's about if you want a happy ending or bad ending. Both games have praised consequences but we've seen nothing of the sort when it comes to Paragons, it's always the Renegade getting the short end of the stick.

I expected this to change in Mass Effect 3, maybe having the Collector Base having ramifications against Paragons (like the Council was for the Renegade) but it seems to have been blown outside the window once again. The writing in the ending scolds Renegades for their decision, praises Paragons and with the new previews coming out we have some of them almost outright calling Renegades stupid for their decision.

How is this balanced? How is this a game of choices and consequences when nothing of the sort exists for the other side of the bar? Why should somebody be Renegade instead of Paragon when they do decisions?

I agree completely. The last few years BW writers have been more pushing a viewpoint and rewarding it than offering compelling choices without value judgement on the player.

[Dean_the_Young]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

In one career, Ashley was adament that the rachni-queen must be killed. In a different one (Wrex in squad) she became conscious of genocide and re-iterated that concern back on ship.

Are you sure about this? Did you Paragon her? I've played ME1 dozens of times and even if I take Ashley and Wrex to the queen and Ashley does indeed point out that this is the last of her species, once on ship she always supports my decision to melt the queen.

At the scene of the decision itself, the game maintains a Paragon-Renegade axis for all the companions. All that matters is the relative alignment of the two characters, so that one will always support each option. This is why you can sometimes set up situations in which Wrex, the second or third 'most Renegade' companion, will push for saving the Council if you have a Renegade Kaiden, or why Liara can argue to sacrifice the Council to a Paragon Ash's objections.

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.



Back on the ship, the Ashley/Kaiden mission responses ('what do you think of the last mission') are shaped by whether they've been Paragon/Renegaded or not.