233 réponses à ce sujet

[hc00]

Tamcia wrote...

They can't handle the consequences of their choices.

So what you are saying is that we should just live with whatever our actions get us, regardless of whether it makes sense or should have happened?


So if I say, walked into a bakers, asked for a loaf of bread, gave him a pound, then he raped me.  I should just accept it as it is the result of my choices?

Strange analogy true, but most of the revealed consequences of me2 choices on me3 are about as logical.

[Nimrodell]

hc00 wrote...

Severyx wrote...

GodWood wrote...

1/ We're cut of extra content that reflect our past choices (unlike paragons)

Where did you hear this false information?

I seem to recall hearing C-Hud himself say that renegades don't lose out, they just get different outcomes. It's important to the team to not punish players for their choices.

Different != Cut

I think what he is reffering to is, stuff like that drug dealer I mentioned.  Small side characters, where a renegade would kill them as it is the right choice, so you dont see them in the next game, thats what he means by loss of content, as we dont see them, but we also dont see the effect removing them had.

Paragons that let them live because they had a feeling they would stop being criminals at least have cameos.

Well not quite true, I managed to have Fist live and well as renegade, and so many others, just didn't go for the first obvious renegade option and that's the spot where ME tricks you... bah was explaining this so many times. There are two types of renegades in ME character system - impatient, jumping ones that kill everyone around them and there is 2nd type of renegade (not renegon and paragade) that actually waits for intimidation option that doesn't have killing moment in itself... there are really few cases when you actually don't have the option to let someone live if you're renegade. Tis just about players and how they understand what renegade is and how they understand convo wheel . as I said million times so far, tis not that you need to jump on first bottom option you get.

And as for famous rachni problem... tis funny actually, rachni are sapient and many justify killing the rachi queen even tho she is a sapient and it actually means genocide but they fight the Reapers and condemn them for doing pretty much same thing... Reapers are in better bargaining position, perceive and judge organics as something that is not good... and organic species did commit attrocities and mass killings... so basically in that case, Shepard's assuming the same position as the Reapers, what a paradox.

One more thing, for all those renegades are pragmatic BS speeches and predictions of logical outcomes that suit their logic without acknowliging other possible pathways I'll just say - what Mordin says to Maelon when he starts speculating, predicting possible outcomes and what Mordin then tells to Shepard about his and salarian strategic predictions that determined their genophage action? I'll paraphrase it - Too many variables involved, wasn't able to predict all outcomes. So no one on playing Shepard should assume which choices are correct and which ones should be 'punished'. And that's something that even real life proves to be wrong - no one knows the future and what set of coincidences may set perfectly planned path into utter chaos one didn't wish to happen... tis arrogant to assume that one's logic is the only correct one.

As for renegades that go around and kill people even tho they actually have the second renegade option - you can't have extra cameos 'cause you killed those characters and as I hear Nosferatu is still Earthbound. Try not killing them - intimidate them, that's enough 'cause you're the badass, but not a mindless killer. If you get your thing from killing random joes, then don't get angry for having emptier space.

[SojournerN7]

I don't feel cheated on either Paragon or Renegade playthroughs. So far, I haven't really seen any good examples in any thread that really discusses why people are complaining about who's getting a fair deal, only speculation about what's going to come in ME3.

If I killed someone back in ME1 that's going to make things alot more difficult for me in ME3, then fine, that's the consequence of my actions. But that's fine because, that's why I'm playing Mass Effect in the first place.

hc00 wrote...
So if I say, walked into a bakers, asked for a loaf of bread, gave him a pound, then he raped me.  I should just accept it as it is the result of my choices?

Well sure, if you leave it at that. Otherwise it's basically: [Paragon] Take him to court. Or [Renegade] Shoot him.

[Minister of Sound]

Paragons and Renegade decisions will both have benefits and drawbacks. For example, eliminating the Rachni may mean that they will be lost as an ally against the Reapers. However, if they are eliminated, then that means that the Reapers will have no Rachni to make husks from, which means less enemies to fight on the battlefield for Shepard.

To put it in the words of the Turian guard from Mass Effect: Redemption: "Quit yer ****in'."

[Eradyn]

PetrySilva wrote...

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

They were never your friend.  Shepard, regardless of philosophy, was in an uneasy alliance with Cerberus from the get-go and TIM makes that abundantly clear throughout.  Shepard is just his pawn, but a willing pawn only so far.




An aside: I really wish people would stop thinking renegade is being "evil" or about becoming Cerberus' lapdog.  As if joining Cerberus, no matter what, is the pinnacle of renegade philosophy and expression. *facepalm* I wonder if anyone else picks up the irony.

Modifié par Eradyn, 15 mai 2011 - 02:36 .

[ODST 5723]

I just played a neutral character, or as neutral as I can be. Now I'm screwed because Bioware hates neutrals and force me into paragon and renegade decisions when I don't want to do that.

Why Bioware? Why? Why do you hate me with forcing me to make decisions and then having to deal with the outcomes of those options?

My neutral character can't even finish the game if I want him to be neutral. I have to stop playing and then skip to the next game. All the content is different from what I wanted. Why, Bioware? Why?

[Someone With Mass]

I've always seen Renegade as the guy who deals with the problem there and then to prevent any other incidents in the future.

So, no. I don't feel cheated or tricked when it comes to content.

[DDK]

Zemious wrote...

Is it too much to ask that our decisions get rewards as WELL?

Yes.

Or, more appropriately, hell yes.

Zemious wrote...

Why is paragon the only route that yields good responses?

Because it's the only route that makes good choices?

I would be stunned that people expect to be rewarded for crappy behaviour if not for the fact that I've been engaging in discussion on internet forums for almost twenty years now. It's scary just how unnatural morality is and how innate selfishness is; so much so that the majority of people I encounter in the world can't seem to grasp a very basic concept of ethics, ie. good begets good, evil begets evil.

Don't for a second believe that renegade isn't evil. Sure, there are shades and every renegade act couldn't be considered overtly evil, but at the end of the day don't pretend that you don't know that every renegade act is ethically wrong. That's the whole point and distinction between the two choices. And when you look at the most extreme examples, it's clear which is good and which is evil. Paragons don't stab people in the back, shoot people in cold-blood, kill civilians, etc.

Now, I realise it's just a game but at the end of the day, you should think long and hard about why you expect to be rewarded for doing the wrong thing, even if it's just in a game.

[absolutegus]

I don't get why Renegades think they have a raw deal. As far as I can tell, the only difference is they don't get to see the characters they killed in the previous game come back in the next game. It would be more realistic if the Paragon option was the "wrong" one sometimes (like with Elnora), but it's a video game so what do you expect?

The ones who truly get screwed are the ones who play a Paragade type character.

[hc00]

Minister of Sound wrote...

Paragons and Renegade decisions will both have benefits and drawbacks. For example, eliminating the Rachni may mean that they will be lost as an ally against the Reapers. However, if they are eliminated, then that means that the Reapers will have no Rachni to make husks from, which means less enemies to fight on the battlefield for Shepard.

To put it in the words of the Turian guard from Mass Effect: Redemption: "Quit yer ****in'."

Actually the reapers will have Huskified Rachni whether you killed the queen or not, as that queen wasnt the last of the rachni, if you do a 100% completion of ME1 you face rachni on about 3 other occasions, and presumably there are more hives than that spread around the galaxy.

Which again is Renegades getting the short end of the stick (though this is one of the times it is sensical and I have no problem with it)

Malisin wrote...

Because it's the only route that makes good choices?

So what you are saying is allowing drug dealers and murderers to carry on as they were as long as they promise to you that they will eventually stop, is a good choice?

You are saying that unleashing a biohazard that at one point was nearly a galactic apocolypse event is a good choice?

You are saying that jepordizing your ability to fight sovereign by sacrificing half of your combat force to save 3 people is a good choice?  (I mean hell, this one ship has just taken out the entirity of the Turian and Asari fleets that were protecting the citadel, you come in with a smaller fleet than either of them.  Of course the right choice is to focus all your power on the reaper rather than sacrificing ships to save 3 politicians)

What a stupid comment that was malisin.

absolutegus wrote...

The ones who truly get screwed are the ones who play a Renegade, Paragade or Renegon type character.

I agree.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 03:18 .

[JamieCOTC]

Eradyn wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

They were never your friend.  Shepard, regardless of philosophy, was in an uneasy alliance with Cerberus from the get-go and TIM makes that abundantly clear throughout.  Shepard is just his pawn, but a willing pawn only so far.




An aside: I really wish people would stop thinking renegade is being "evil" or about becoming Cerberus' lapdog.  As if joining Cerberus, no matter what, is the pinnacle of renegade philosophy and expression. *facepalm* I wonder if anyone else picks up the irony.

In this respect my canon paragon is more renegade than my renegade.  She hates Cerberus, but won't be happy about going back to the Alliance and the Council either.  On that note, my renegade bleeds blue and only played nice w/ Cerberus on the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy.  She hated TIM, but gave Cerberus a chance.  One chance.  They blew it. 

And as for railroading, there wasn't nearly enough confrontation between paragon Shep and TIM as opposed to renegade Shep and the Council in ME1. 

[absolutegus]

hc00 wrote...

absolutegus wrote...

The ones who truly get screwed are the ones who play a Renegade, Paragade or Renegon type character.

I agree.

I see what you did there . Maybe Paragons get better treatment than Renegades, but there's no way you can convince me that Renegades don't have it better off than Paragades/Renegons. At least Renegades don't actually lose out on gameplay choices unless they metagame and plan ahead.

Modifié par absolutegus, 15 mai 2011 - 03:27 .

[Guitar-Hero]

I don't know, i played as a mix but leaning toward renegade as it made more sense to me, if you made the "rengade" choice and you are opset that the choice had a concequence i ask you, what did you expect? TIM is a sinister, powerhungry suit, ofcourse he is going to take advantage of you, and it is naive to think otherwise.

[absolutegus]

Steffen wrote...

I don't know, i played as a mix but leaning toward renegade as it made more sense to me, if you made the "rengade" choice and you are opset that the choice had a concequence i ask you, what did you expect? TIM is a sinister, powerhungry suit, ofcourse he is going to take advantage of you, and it is naive to think otherwise.

I think their contention is that Renegade choices have consequences and Paragon choices don't. But I don't think anyone can actually say that at this point. Everything regarding Mass Effect 3 so far is speculation, and I can't really think of any consequences of being Renegade in ME1 and ME2 except certain characters die which is completely the point most of the time.

[tausra]

If you were really a Renegade Cyborg-Killing-machine-who-like-totally-hates-authority you wouldn't want to sign up with Cerberus for the long haul, because they totally have rules and stuff and rules get in the way of killing things.

[DDK]

hc00 wrote...

You are saying that jepordizing your ability to fight sovereign by sacrificing half of your combat force to save 3 people is a good choice?  (I mean hell, this one ship has just taken out the entirity of the Turian and Asari fleets that were protecting the citadel, you come in with a smaller fleet than either of them.  Of course the right choice is to focus all your power on the reaper rather than sacrificing ships to save 3 politicians)

What a stupid comment that was malisin.

I really hope you're not in any position of authority.

[Aumata]

Besides the few crap that happen, barely noticed a differences between the two. We will see what happens in ME3.

[ExtremeOne]

tausra wrote...

If you were really a Renegade Cyborg-Killing-machine-who-like-totally-hates-authority you wouldn't want to sign up with Cerberus for the long haul, because they totally have rules and stuff and rules get in the way of killing things.

  


Oh you talk about rules so what now My Shepard has to follow the rules of a group that love aliens a hell of lot more than they love humans. Bioware are cowards for not giving Shepard a aligment choice in 2. But guess what since choice does not matter in ME 3 and us renegade are getting F**ked over by Bioware . I plan on being the biggest renegade in ME 3 that the game allows .  I have no problem with killing squad mates or npcs anymore . why should any of us renegades care we know ME 3 is built for paragons. anyone that crosses the path of My Shepard in 3 no matter if its a npc or who ever it is unless its a squad mate that I like or My LI Miranda will die and I will not shed any tears over it .  Oh I will destroy alien planets if I get the choice .  

[Nimrodell]

Eradyn wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

They were never your friend.  Shepard, regardless of philosophy, was in an uneasy alliance with Cerberus from the get-go and TIM makes that abundantly clear throughout.  Shepard is just his pawn, but a willing pawn only so far.




An aside: I really wish people would stop thinking renegade is being "evil" or about becoming Cerberus' lapdog.  As if joining Cerberus, no matter what, is the pinnacle of renegade philosophy and expression. *facepalm* I wonder if anyone else picks up the irony.

That's is exactly my point this whole time - renegade, true one, wouldn't give a fig about Cerberus' authority and even BW has shown that on that lost Cerberus agent mission with stolen data - renegade actually keeps data for him/herself - a proper pragmatic back-up. Being a renegade doesn't mean joining with Cerberus by default nor supporting TIM nor being evil - it all depends on how one understands renegade as term and BW did respect that fact... I was annoyed by the fact that saving/loosing the Council or destroying/keeping the base was considered as para/rene choice 'cause those decisions didn't have anything to do with morality and that was BW biggest mistake that spawned all these whining threads. Both choices had their valid and invalid arguments and tbh it's more to do with 'Am I taking the risk or not'.

[DPSSOC]

Minister of Sound wrote...

Paragons and Renegade decisions will both have benefits and drawbacks. For example, eliminating the Rachni may mean that they will be lost as an ally against the Reapers. However, if they are eliminated, then that means that the Reapers will have no Rachni to make husks from, which means less enemies to fight on the battlefield for Shepard.

Ok people can we be realistic for a moment.  Bioware is not going to create a new enemy that some players will never encounter.  Paragon or Renegade are all going to have Rachni Husks to deal with it will not be a result of the choice in ME1.

To answer the title question it's because Renegades are beaten over the head with the negative consequences of their actions while the positives are kind of muted (they are there though).  Where as Paragons are, at best, the opposite.  The positive consequences of Paragon decisions are thrown out and lauded and advertised remarkably openly while the negatives (if any exist) are harder to notice.  You really need to pay attention to see the benefits of Renegade decisions and I assume vice versa, and since most of us don't (there's things to kill after all) we miss them and as such Renegades feel like they're getting a raw deal.

I actually like how Renegade decisions turned out and wish/hope that Bioware did/does Paragon the same.  In ME2 Renegades get the desired outcome with an unintended/unexpected drawback.  Thus far Paragons only seem to get the desired outcome and that's boring (which has always been my main reason for not going pure Paragon, it's dull).

[ExtremeOne]

Nimrodell wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

They were never your friend.  Shepard, regardless of philosophy, was in an uneasy alliance with Cerberus from the get-go and TIM makes that abundantly clear throughout.  Shepard is just his pawn, but a willing pawn only so far.




An aside: I really wish people would stop thinking renegade is being "evil" or about becoming Cerberus' lapdog.  As if joining Cerberus, no matter what, is the pinnacle of renegade philosophy and expression. *facepalm* I wonder if anyone else picks up the irony.

That's is exactly my point this whole time - renegade, true one, wouldn't give a fig about Cerberus' authority and even BW has shown that on that lost Cerberus agent mission with stolen data - renegade actually keeps data for him/herself - a proper pragmatic back-up. Being a renegade doesn't mean joining with Cerberus by default nor supporting TIM nor being evil - it all depends on how one understands renegade as term and BW did respect that fact... I was annoyed by the fact that saving/loosing the Council or destroying/keeping the base was considered as para/rene choice 'cause those decisions didn't have anything to do with morality and that was BW biggest mistake that spawned all these whining threads. Both choices had their valid and invalid arguments and tbh it's more to do with 'Am I taking the risk or not'.

    






Real Reenegades do not give a dam about any rules . The alliance and its rules can basically kiss my ass . My pro human Shepard has no need for them and if they get in his way they be dealt with 

[Elvis_Mazur]

Eradyn wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

Because you gave a base to group that was your friend back in ME2 and now is your enemy?


I'm not renegade, I'm paragade, but now I see how the last choice in ME2 is completely one-sided.

They were never your friend.  Shepard, regardless of philosophy, was in an uneasy alliance with Cerberus from the get-go and TIM makes that abundantly clear throughout.  Shepard is just his pawn, but a willing pawn only so far.

Ok, maybe I need to express myself better.

Even though one knew that TIM wasn't doing those things because he loved Shepard, he/ she knew that both of them had the same motives regarding the Reapers: to stop them. And, also, that same person would think such objective is the priority for the TIM.

With that in mind, no one thought that suddenly TIM would be your enemy and try to kill you in the next game.

[Seboist]

Why Renegades feel cheated? Let's take a close look at the Council decision at the end of ME1:

Paragon choice: Able to save the Council AND destroy Sovereign with minimal losses. Nobody cares that you've gone of your way to sacrifice human lives to save alien bureaucrats while Sovereign was on the verge of unleashing Armageddon on the galaxy. You get to see the Council in the next game too.

Renegade choice: Taking the pragmatic choice is made into a joke as you can have your cake and eat it by doing otherwise. Aliens hate you and you're screwed from seeing the human dominated council.

[Ahglock]

Malisin wrote...

hc00 wrote...

You are saying that jepordizing your ability to fight sovereign by sacrificing half of your combat force to save 3 people is a good choice?  (I mean hell, this one ship has just taken out the entirity of the Turian and Asari fleets that were protecting the citadel, you come in with a smaller fleet than either of them.  Of course the right choice is to focus all your power on the reaper rather than sacrificing ships to save 3 politicians)

What a stupid comment that was malisin.

I really hope you're not in any position of authority.

People in positions of authority will make that call every time.   Lets use D-Day as an exmaple.  Lets Say the Leaders of England, France, Russia, and America were taken hostage and were 20 miles east or whatever of the Beaches of Normandy in heavily fortified positions.  You are given 2 choices send your forces to rescue the leaderrs first, take causalties and then storm the beaches of normandy, or storm the beaches of normandy and let the leaders die.  In virtually every case you would just storm the beaches of normandy because even if you think the plan is good, you don't know how many people you will lose in the rescue effort and what effect that will have on the larger goal.