233 réponses à ce sujet

[Turran]

Simply put, on my Renegade playthrough you got the feeling you were a bastard and a backstabbing thug at some points.
Man up Renegades and grow some balls, Paragons let people live and yes most of them seem to have a positive outcome, at NO point did either Para or Rene know letting the Rachni Queen love was right but it comes to bit you in the arse for wiping put a Rachni queen, it could of gone either way.
You are playing an evil character! What reward do you want for being evil?! You arnt nice to anyone so why should that benefit you?! Think realisticly?

[JetsoverEverything]

Turran wrote...

Simply put, on my Renegade playthrough you got the feeling you were a bastard and a backstabbing thug at some points.
Man up Renegades and grow some balls, Paragons let people live and yes most of them seem to have a positive outcome, at NO point did either Para or Rene know letting the Rachni Queen love was right but it comes to bit you in the arse for wiping put a Rachni queen, it could of gone either way.
You are playing an evil character! What reward do you want for being evil?! You arnt nice to anyone so why should that benefit you?! Think realisticly?

1. realisticly the world is one big renegade nation hahah so dont go there.

2. Renegades arent evil friend i think you gettin your **** mixed up.
like a few peope have said renegades are heroes who do whatever it takes to win even if it means killing off a few people.

[hc00]

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.

How so?

This is a ship no one has seen before, it has already destroyed the fleets of the 2 most powerful races without difficulty and without taking any damage or even being delayed at all.

Now you know it is going to make itself vulnerable in a few minutes, however what vulnerable is for a ship that powerful is a complete unknown.  Any decision other than holding your force back and performing a concentrated attack is the wrong decision.

absolutegus wrote...

I think their contention is that Renegade choices have consequences and Paragon choices don't.

Why do people keep asserting that as fact when it isnt?

Every renegade complaint thread I have seen is either complaining because both have consequences, however the paragon consequences are better even when they shouldnt be.

Or that you are missing out on consequences by being a renegade (ie the mission where you kill the 2 mob bosses for Helena Blake, if you are a paragon she turns her life around for no good reason, however if you kill her as a renegade of course you arent going to see her, but it would be nice to hear a news article or something  about how her former criminal empire has started to crumble without leadership)

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 05:41 .

[JetsoverEverything]

there should be NO WRONG decisions in Mass Effect PERIOD!

Modifié par JetsoverEverything, 15 mai 2011 - 05:44 .

[hc00]

JetsoverEverything wrote...

there should be NO WRONG decisions in Mass Effect PERIOD!

I agree 100%


If they make it so each decision has upsides and downsides it will be good.  I dont think they will though.

[Bozorgmehr]

Turran wrote...

Simply put, on my Renegade playthrough you got the feeling you were a bastard and a backstabbing thug at some points.
Man up Renegades and grow some balls, Paragons let people live and yes most of them seem to have a positive outcome, at NO point did either Para or Rene know letting the Rachni Queen love was right but it comes to bit you in the arse for wiping put a Rachni queen, it could of gone either way.
You are playing an evil character! What reward do you want for being evil?! You arnt nice to anyone so why should that benefit you?! Think realisticly?

Renegade does not equal evil - on the contrary; Renegades are the sensible ones in town.

A Paragon policeman would abondon chasing the most dangerous criminal in the universe whenever (s)he spots someone who's driving around with a busted backlight. A Renegade policeman got his/her priorities right and ignores insignificant mumbo jumbo and focuses on the important matter at hand.

[Knightsire]

hc00 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Supporting Harrowmont seems to be the "paragon" decision, though supporting Behlen seems to be better for the dwarven futur in the end

How so?  Harrowmont is traditionalist, and destabilizing the dwarven people in order to get power from the rightful hier (spelt wrong?)  an hier who is trying to move the dwarven people ahead sociologically in order to prevent their extinction. 
 
How could harrowmont be seen as paragon.  I thought the whole point of him was so if you were playing dwarf noble you didn't have to side with the guy who betrayed you, if your noble is the kind to hold grudges. 
 
After all its just harrowmonts word vs bhelens about whether bhelens father wanted him to be king.

Bhelen murdered his other siblings to be first in line for the crown.  He kills people who get in his way.  Harrowmont at least tries to be diplomatic.

Unless murdering people in the way of your ambition is the new paragon...

[Knightsire]

hc00 wrote...

skcih-deraj wrote...
Not what I was saying at all. The game hasn't even come out yet so saying whether or not its made based on the little information we have isn't exactly fair. But yeah pick every thing apart, jeeze.  

We know next to nothing about the story aside from "the reapers are comming" and I just think it's a little early to judge on who supposedly got cheated. And the whole point of my post was to point out all the whining renegades (and some paragons!) do.

Unfortunately thats how it has to be.  These are games in which the players become heavily invested, but each player has distinct ideas on how it should end, and will feel cheated if it doesnt end how they feel it should (maybe most is more accurat than each).

Every bit of information that makes it seem like the end will be different than a player wanted will create hundreds of angry people, and unfortunately nearly all the info released so far has been the kind that ruins renegade players ideas of how the game will end.

Now it is a bit early to definatively state the game/story will be a pile of drosh, but all the signs so far have been disconcerting.

It sounds like the game doesn't agree with your morality and so you now consider it garbage.

[absolutegus]

hc00 wrote...

absolutegus wrote...

I think their contention is that Renegade choices have consequences and Paragon choices don't.

Why do people keep asserting that as fact when it isnt?

Every renegade complaint thread I have seen is either complaining because both have consequences, however the paragon consequences are better even when they shouldnt be.

Or that you are missing out on consequences by being a renegade (ie the mission where you kill the 2 mob bosses for Helena Blake, if you are a paragon she turns her life around for no good reason, however if you kill her as a renegade of course you arent going to see her, but it would be nice to hear a news article or something  about how her former criminal empire has started to crumble without leadership)

Your first point is what I meant. What I'm saying is I don't really see it. The outcomes are almost exactly the same no matter which decisions you make. Should deciding not to try and save the council result in all Paragons losing and not being able to import into ME2? If you take the Renegade choice, you lose the Destiny Ascension. If you take the Paragon choice, you lose a bunch of Alliance vessels. It seems like a fair trade off to me. I can't think of any significant situation in which you could say that there's really any difference in the consequences between the two. Can you give me an example? A lot of the complaints seem to be about things like the Collector Base and are pure speculation until ME3 comes out.

As far as your second point, is it really that big a deal? The most that happens for minor choices like that is a 30 second conversation or a short email as far as I can remember. Ok, it would be cool if Bioware could throw in a galactic news announcement or something for the Renegade players, but I hardly feel like they're on the receiving end of some huge injustice.

[hc00]

absolutegus wrote...

Your first point is what I meant. What I'm saying is I don't really see it. The outcomes are almost exactly the same no matter which decisions you make. Should deciding not to try and save the council result in all Paragons losing and not being able to import into ME2? If you take the Renegade choice, you lose the Destiny Ascension. If you take the Paragon choice, you lose a bunch of Alliance vessels. It seems like a fair trade off to me. I can't think of any significant situation in which you could say that there's really any difference in the consequences between the two. Can you give me an example? A lot of the complaints seem to be about things like the Collector Base and are pure speculation until ME3 comes out.

As far as your second point, is it really that big a deal? The most that happens for minor choices like that is a 30 second conversation or a short email as far as I can remember. Ok, it would be cool if Bioware could throw in a galactic news announcement or something for the Renegade players, but I hardly feel like they're on the receiving end of some huge injustice.

The collector base is probably the main one yes, because it is unknown how it will play out but usually handing your sworn enemy a doomsday device doesnt end well for you.

But it is other things like the as a paragon you can potentially get a Rachni queen on your side, whereas as a renegade you get the guy who controls one of the most advanced planets in the galaxy in your pocket, and thus access to anything on that planet, yet it doesnt have any effect on 2 and almost certainly will have none on 3.

The paragon choices seem to have more of an effect, and the effect seems to be generally positive

Of course it is all speculation, and thus all of it is most likely incorrect, but until it is released speculate is all we can do

As for the 2nd point, no I dont think it is that big a problem myself, but I understand where it is coming from so thought it was worth a mention.

Knightsire wrote...

Bhelen murdered his other siblings to
be first in line for the crown.  He kills people who get in his way. 
Harrowmont at least tries to be diplomatic.

Unless murdering people in the way of your ambition is the new paragon...

Rather than picking a random point in a conversation which has already concluded and then running your mouth, why not read the whole thing?

What that basically boiled down to is, Harrowmont seems to be the more trustworthy person, but Bhelens goals mean he will have to do things that aid all of the dwarves, even if that isnt his intention, so surely choosing Bhelen is the better option.  Wasnt anything to do with paragon or renegade really, it was to do with choices that dont initially seem good being the best option.

Modifié par hc00, 15 mai 2011 - 06:55 .

[DPSSOC]

absolutegus wrote...

hc00 wrote...

absolutegus wrote...
I think their contention is that Renegade choices have consequences and Paragon choices don't.

Why do people keep asserting that as fact when it isnt?

Every renegade complaint thread I have seen is either complaining because both have consequences, however the paragon consequences are better even when they shouldnt be.

Or that you are missing out on consequences by being a renegade (ie the mission where you kill the 2 mob bosses for Helena Blake, if you are a paragon she turns her life around for no good reason, however if you kill her as a renegade of course you arent going to see her, but it would be nice to hear a news article or something  about how her former criminal empire has started to crumble without leadership)

Your first point is what I meant. What I'm saying is I don't really see it. The outcomes are almost exactly the same no matter which decisions you make. Should deciding not to try and save the council result in all Paragons losing and not being able to import into ME2? If you take the Renegade choice, you lose the Destiny Ascension. If you take the Paragon choice, you lose a bunch of Alliance vessels. It seems like a fair trade off to me.

 
And were that the end of it I'd completely agree with you, a dreadnought for a few cruisers seems a fair trade off.  However, if you go Paragon you lose 8 (I think) cruisers and the aliens love you with no indication given in either game (far as I've noticed) that losing those 8 cruisers is a big deal.  If you go Renegade you lose the Destiny Acension and the aliens are hostile; very important word there hostile, not uncooperative, not unfriendly, hostile; with only a subtle indication that humanity is any better off militarily.  The decision seems to leave Renegades with a diplomatic disadvantage (as well it should), while not offering any military advantage, yet Paragons get a diplomatic advantage (as well they should) while not suffering any military disadvantage.

Now I'm willing to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt that the imbalance is merely a perceived one and that neither Paragon nor Renegade are ultimately any better off.  However the perception of an imbalance is still there and should be addressed.

absolutegus wrote...
I can't think of any significant situation in which you could say that there's really any difference in the consequences between the two. Can you give me an example? A lot of the complaints seem to be about things like the Collector Base and are pure speculation until ME3 comes out.

Well there's the Council as stated above and the Rachni which we know give Paragons a sizeable advantage while offering Renegades squat (as of yet).  So unless Bioware intends to trick us with the Rachni, which would just make my day I love being tricked (long as it's harmless), there's two.  The Geth and Quarians are also more likely to go well for Paragons since you don't encourage the Quarians to start a war with the Geth and that can only help things, and the Geth have greater numbers.  Now these could go either way but given the trend set by ME2 and what we know about ME3 it's most likely these will go the way they seem to (Quarian/Geth peace, United Geth).

[K3lg4r]

I play a mostly paragon Shepard and I completely agree with the "renegades". The mass effect universe seems to be a karma-dominated universe where selfless actions and leaps of faith always get the best rewards. Why would you even want to be a criminal in a world like that?
I really hope Bioware surprises us in the last chapter by making us regret some "good" choices (like happens in real life), cause so far they haven't.
For example: I think I would have loved the story-writing if at the end of ME2 Legion turned out to be an infiltrated geth and even killed one of your team, that would have let us players feel a lot more burden in our future choices. Right now why would anyone turn Legion to Cerberus when he's clearly the last addition to the team and giving him to the Illusive Man doesn't even reward you with new geth technology-based weapons or armors? Or why would you listen to your crew concerns about releasing Grunt when it's so obvious he's the krogan replacement for Okeer?

Some choices shouldn't even be about "paragon or renegade"...I enden ME1 saving the council, not because I liked them or thought they deserved to live, but as a political maneuver to gain the trust and respect of other alien races...and to do that I sacrificed a lot of men. How is that paragon? And in ME2 I didn't even meet some angry widow to tell me how I sent her husband to die just to save a few politicians (But at least they made me regret this choice when I spoke to the turian councilor).
Same goes for the collector's base...how is keeping a ship full of advanced technology a renegade (and thus bad) choice when there's an army of technologically advanced machines ready to wipe any form of life? Yea, I know that TIM is dangerous, but can he really be more dangerous than the Reapers? And what annoys me the most is how they made it so obvious it was a bad choice by making everyone tell you how you shouldn't have turned the base to him...even Jacob, who just kept repeating for the whole game how he joined Cerberus to make the difference and get things done, now suddenly doesn't trust them? (I don't know about Miranda, cause she's KIA in my save file...but I can imagine). Woah, I didn't know my whole crew already played ME3!
I bet if the Illusive Man told Shepard: "Please Shepard give me a chance to make things right, I know I made some bad calls in the past, I'm sorry about poor Admiral Kahoku, I've changed, seeing you in action opened my eyes, and blahblahblah" then keeping the base would have been the paragon option and in ME3 it would have NORMANDY SR-3 written all over it if you didn't destroy it.

[Guitar-Hero]

absolutegus wrote...

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.

I think there are plenty of opportunities for paragons to get the short end of the stick by allowing the wrong people/races to live, as far as i see it, being a renegade is all about sacrifice, about making the choices that no one is willing to make, wether you are sacrificing your crew, your humanity, yourself, you will succeed, because you have the will to do what others won't, this will have concequences, but you will save the world and the world will hate you for it, that is why the renegade is more heroic than the paragon(in my opinion).

[DPSSOC]

Steffen wrote...
I think there are plenty of opportunities for paragons to get the short end of the stick by allowing the wrong people/races to live,

 
Yes there are plenty of opportunities, every Paragon choice is an opportunity (as is every Renegade), but we've seen little indication that any of those opportunities will come to pass.  Besides I don't think most Renegade players want Paragon decisions to go bad, Renegades get everything they set out to get (no Renegade decision has backfired as of yet) so why shouldn't the Paragons.  The difference, and as I've stated it may be there isn't one we just aren't seeing the balance, is that Renegades get what they wanted and something they didn't.  We pay a cost for our decisions that Paragon decisions seem to lack.

So I pose this question, what do the Paragons lose by saving the Council in ME2.  I'm not talking about the cruisers those were lost in ME1; what negative consequence is there to your decision in ME2?  Renegades sacrifice the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and/or secure human power; they get it but they lose the Council races as allies and possibly gain them as enemies.  The Paragons sacrifice Alliance soldiers to save the Council and/or secure galactic unity; they get it but lose...what?

[Elite Midget]

Because nearly everything a Renegade does backfires.

You killed the Rachni? You have one less ally in ME3 and no cameo in ME2.
You killed the Council? You can't be a spectre again and you don't get to even meet with the new Council.
You saved the CB? Too bad, Cerberus wants you dead anyway.

[Guitar-Hero]

DPSSOC wrote...

Steffen wrote...
I think there are plenty of opportunities for paragons to get the short end of the stick by allowing the wrong people/races to live,

 
Yes there are plenty of opportunities, every Paragon choice is an opportunity (as is every Renegade), but we've seen little indication that any of those opportunities will come to pass.  Besides I don't think most Renegade players want Paragon decisions to go bad, Renegades get everything they set out to get (no Renegade decision has backfired as of yet) so why shouldn't the Paragons.  The difference, and as I've stated it may be there isn't one we just aren't seeing the balance, is that Renegades get what they wanted and something they didn't.  We pay a cost for our decisions that Paragon decisions seem to lack.

So I pose this question, what do the Paragons lose by saving the Council in ME2.  I'm not talking about the cruisers those were lost in ME1; what negative consequence is there to your decision in ME2?  Renegades sacrifice the Council to ensure Sovereign's defeat and/or secure human power; they get it but they lose the Council races as allies and possibly gain them as enemies.  The Paragons sacrifice Alliance soldiers to save the Council and/or secure galactic unity; they get it but lose...what?

I understand your argument but following that logic it should be the paragons complaining as they are the ones who's choices lack impact, and the negative consequence could be that the council is made of backwards beaurocrats who want to cover their own ass, the council is clearly hostile towards shepard and will procede to fight him at every turn, but i agree that there is a general lack of choices having a purpose, which is why i am baffled by the response that some are giving to a choice actually having a concequence.  

[DxWill10]

I wish I had the willpower to play a Shepard that isn't extreme Paragon or Renegade. But in the end, if I have grayed out dialogue choices....well I just wouldn't be able to handle that. Kudos to you neutral Shepards. Is being pragmatic worth being awful at resolving things through dialogue? You can't even threaten the damned Batarian at the entrance of Afterlife if you're smack dab in the middle of both paragon and renegade. Meh, to each his own I suppose.

Edit: I guess I'll add to the discussion.  Personally,  I have more Paragon playthroughs than Renegade. because it just seems renegade playthroughs have less content, as most of the choices results in Shepard killing something.  Seeing that Cerberus is after you even if you gave them the base doesn't help change my viewpoint either.  Sure it's fun to be a douche to everyone sometimes, but not at the expense of missing cameos, etc that Paragons got.

Modifié par DxWill10, 16 mai 2011 - 12:59 .

[DPSSOC]

Oh yeah I love how Renegade was handled (main Sheps Renegon) and really just find the Paragon side dull, but many people see it as the other way round. Consider this; you pay $5 for a meal and it's delicious, you're perfectly satisfied with it. Then the next customer is given an equal portion for free. You later find out it was a bland, stale, flavourless portion but wouldn't it still bother you that they got essentially what you did without having to pay?

Edit: DxWill10 illustrates the mindset I'm referring to perfectly.  Some will look at the Renegade as the richer, more fulfilling path because the universe they've created has weight and consequence, and others will look at the Paragon as superior because they get more stuff (and who doesn't love stuff).

Modifié par DPSSOC, 16 mai 2011 - 01:04 .

[Hatchetman77]

I still have a feeling that the Paragon option in Legion's loyalty mission (where you repurpose the virus) will come back to bite you in the ass, possably to balance out the Paragon option to save the Rachni.

[silentassassin264]

The reason I feel betrayed and bioware is out for me for being renegade is that every single renegade decision that is based in common sense fails miserably and every paragon option that is mind numbingly stupid gets you ahead (or at least from a not metagaming point of view).

:::::::Spoiler Warning:::::

Evil insect race that tried to wipe out the galaxy.
-Kill them. Whoops you lost an army
-Spare them. We have reserves.

Wipe out ineffectual and obstructionist council so you can save the galaxy?
Lol psyche. Even more obstructionist council that won't even meet with you.

Destroy the only safeguard from violent warrior race overrunning the galaxy?
Now they love you and will be your reserves?

Intact Geth? Super Krogan?
-Give it to Cerberus to study? Lose squadmate

Collector base with proof for the council and untold advancement opportunities?
-Destroy it like an idiot? Yay for you now the organization you betrayed that saved your life is weakened for when the inevitably try to kill you.
-Save it to preserve the knowledge of how to beat your enemies? You get betrayed anyway and your "allies" try to kill you.

See the trend. The paragon is usually stupid as can be without metagaming but it is always the "right" option. Not once do you get punished for being a carebear in a cutthroat galaxy. The pragmatic renegade on the other hand has everything backfire over and over and over. That is just annoying. The relegated renegade to just having a "cool" sequence for minor decisions but if you try to go renegade for big things it just blows up in your face.

Also losing content for killing people or whatnot for renegade decisions as a whole is really really annoying.  There should be something to counter that loss but no effort is given.  

Modifié par silentassassin264, 16 mai 2011 - 01:17 .

[DPSSOC]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I still have a feeling that the Paragon option in Legion's loyalty mission (where you repurpose the virus) will come back to bite you in the ass, possably to balance out the Paragon option to save the Rachni.

I doubt it, not because "RAWR BIOWARE SUKS UP TO TEH PARAGONS!", but because to Bioware's credit no choice thus far has done a full 180, as I pointed out even with the Council the Renegade does get the intended result just not the ideal result.  Which again is all I really want to see from the Paragon choices, that the results of their actions fall just a little short of ideal.

[Hatchetman77]

DPSSOC wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I still have a feeling that the Paragon option in Legion's loyalty mission (where you repurpose the virus) will come back to bite you in the ass, possably to balance out the Paragon option to save the Rachni.

I doubt it, not because "RAWR BIOWARE SUKS UP TO TEH PARAGONS!", but because to Bioware's credit no choice thus far has done a full 180, as I pointed out even with the Council the Renegade does get the intended result just not the ideal result.  Which again is all I really want to see from the Paragon choices, that the results of their actions fall just a little short of ideal.

In DA2 it is strongly implied that letting the Architect live in DA:A may not have been the smartest move.  I think BioWare may be warming up to the pragmatic choice being the best solution.

[tjzsf]

Finished my first renegade playthrough of ME1. The issue I have is this:
Paragon and Renegade are not supposed to be "good"/"evil", but "idealistic"/"realistic". I played a "reasonable renegade" - that is, prioritizes the mission above all else, but isn't unnecessarily a stupid jerkass about it, because burning bridges when you can avoid it is just retarded.
Yet, with all the major decisions, the Paragon choice is the better one.
Rachni queen - the enemy wants to wipe out organic life. The rachni are on the sinking boat with you. They are also not nearly the powerhouse they used to be back when they had a bajillion queens, and the problem could be fully controllable even if they turn on you after beating the Reapers.
Feros colonists - there is absolutely no need to kill the colony. They do such a piddling amount of damage to you that you might as well be a 40K Space Marine. Plus, keeping colony is better for humanity. Shiala is the same - mind-controlled, plus may be able to provide more intel upon questioning.
Not killing Wrex - does this even need to be said?
Destiny Ascension - first off, you will have to wait for the arms to open anyway, so a human fleet just sitting at the Arcturus relay isn't contributing at all. Second, it's far better to deal with small chunks of the enemy with all of your guys than it is to send them in piecemeal. Mass up everyone and wipe the geth fleet, then have everyone concentrate fire on Sovereign is superior to leaving the geth to the Citadel fleet and hoping the geth don't win. Also, Shepard is a naval officer and therefore should know that the fleet would curbstomp the geth.
In the end, i had 100% renegade and around 80% paragon.
Playing a "reasonable" Paragon doesn't yield nearly the same break.

[tjzsf]

Partial solution for minor things like sidequests and cameos: neutral options give equal numbers of paragon/renegade points, instead of just no points at all.

[Grissium]

I really don't get where this train of thought is coming from.

For example I killed the Geth and I don't think it was a bad idea. A) do we really need Geth out there remembering what it was like to be a heretic. I saw that episode of TNG when they let the Borg individual Hugh back into the collective, even though being an individual wasn't a bad thing for him it really messed things up. Geth are robots. They don't get happy, they don't get sad, they just run programs. Legion while surprised at what his people have become doesn't seem to be that sad about blowing up terminals full of them, probably killing hundreds of his own people. C) When you get the choice the split in Legion is pretty even. No matter what you are going to have your Geth supporters because just shy of half of them think you did the right thing.

Renegade isn't "evil" or "Wrong" it's mostly convenient at the time, and sometimes that works out and sometimes it doesn't. Renegade Shepard will just bully people into helping him anyway so what are you worried about?