233 réponses à ce sujet

[Bozorgmehr]

Arcian wrote...

The only problem here is you, you and the other renegades and Cerberusfans who can't get over themselves. Stop expecting BioWare to reward you for playing a dog-kicking, terrorist-supporting, murderous criminal. You've made your choice.

Deal with it.

Uh, it's the Paragon option to let criminals go free - not Renegade. The Renegades are only interested in taking out those terrorist whilst the Paragon is unable to see the big picture.

Question: if you had the choice between catching / killing the most dangerous terrorist around, but in doing that some innocent folks will die. Not catching / killing that terrorist will (most likely) result in 100 x more innocents dying in the future. What would you do? And how would you label your choice - Par or Ren?

[Someone With Mass]

Arcian wrote...
Protip, if you're not going to metagame, stop metagaming and deal with the consequences of your choices. That's the whole point of the game.

That.

It's how I play.

And really? People are whining about consequences of the Renegade just because they didn't meet the human Council in ME2?

Protip #2: Find something worth ****ing and moaning about.

[Bearcut]

I think the problem here is the assumption that certain actions are renegade; for example: Even as a paragon, I felt that you could justify going after Vido during Zaeed's mission. Why? Even though you are sacrificing a few people to get to him, if you let him go, he's going to do it it again. I'm not saying it's a paragon action, but its not a "I don't give a &&&& about anything" reaction that makes you evil. However, it's not a perfect system and not everyone is going to be pleased.

Maybe paragons are rewarded more. But it does kind of make sense that if you kill everything, you'll have less content to play through in the following chapters. Sorry?

[CroGamer002]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Uh, the only one who matters - Shepard / You!

In that case why do you give a sh*t on what other people think in Mass Effect?
They don't know about the Reapers and you're braking laws about this imaginary enemies. You really think they'll love you for that?

Not killing the Rachni Queen who has (nearly) killed a colony and likely will try again (there is no clue whatsoever she won't) is Paragon?It's GOOD to let mass murderers go free if they play nice when they feel that's the only way to get out of a situations alive? Sounds like Paragons are fools to me - believing this kind of nonsense

What are you talking about?
Rachni Queen didn't killed anyone in ME1 and only her children, that were insane do to not hearing her songs, killed people who were doing experiments on them and were on Saren's payroll.

Also about Rachni's outside of Noveria? That's Cerberus to blame! And happens no matter what you did to Rachni Queen!

You think it's GOOD to save a couple of workers while capturing or killing the leader of one of the most notorious merc groups - who's likely to setup a new base with new workers the next day - is BAD?

Vido is not a leader of Blue Suns, it's Solem Del'Serah. Death of Vido may do heavy damage to Blue Suns but his death is not good enough to kill off innocents.

The ME Paragon values a single life over genocide - the ME Renegade will sacrifice a single soul to save many others. Technically, Renegades are the real good guys b/c in my book saving 100 and killing one beats saving one which results in a 100 others dying.

You mean like in Arrival... oh right.

Besides last time I checked Zhu's Hope is gone if you killed of most colonists which doesn't help anyone. And it never happen that I saved few and lost many as Paragon, unlike with Renegade.

Priorities, my friend, priorities

Yeah, but that still doesn't change that people will hate you.
Unless you don't care then don't b*tch about it.

That's how I feel when I play Renegade, I DO NOT CARE what others think about my Shepard.

[Someone With Mass]

Sounds like some people loves to pull stuff out of their asses.

[Ashira Shepard]

Mesina2 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Renegades are Type V.

Here's a example from that site, about Mass Effect.

Tropes wrote...

Renegade Shepard of Mass Effect is, for the most part, Type IV during Mass Effect 1, but by Mass Effect 2, he/she can murder one of his/her squadmates and replace her with a Complete Monster, murder an unarmed (albeit assholish) bystander, and happily ignore the pleas of those burning in a factory to help one of his/her squadmates score his revenge.

Pretty much this. Just to remind.

I play a Paragade anyway, most of my big choices are Paragon, and my Shep only becomes cruel and ruthless with criminals or monsters.

Like others have noted, if you're a straight renegade you've likely murdered when you could've saved, let people die when you could've saved them (Jacob's LM, sick batarian, wounded salarian) among others. I mean I feel like a dick if I don't do something because that's the whole point; you could've done better. And you didn't.

[Ashira Shepard]

I always killed Balak...

Then saved the workers on Zaeed's mission.

The flamed the unholy hell out of that mouthy Krogan on Mordin's LM.
And left Jacob's dad to die by the people he tormented.

Had Wrex and the Council survive, did not kill Shiala.

Basically my Shep tried to do the "right" thing for the situation, regardless of if the choice in question is decorated in 'pretty blue' or 'cool red.'

[Wulfram]

Having a chip on your shoulder is the renegade way.

[K3lg4r]

I think some people fail to read and understand
ME has two kinds of renegade actions:
-those where you act like a complete dick, like punching the journalist in the face
-those where you have to make difficult choices and make a sacrifice for what you think is the greater good or to prevent future problems

no one here is complaining that you don't get rewarded for being a dick, the reward is the action itself...it's ok that you don't get anything from being sadistic and mean. People are complaining about the outcome of the though choices, that somehow always rewards the naive paragon choice. I mean: would you really set a criminal free just because they said that they rather die than go to prison and promise to end their illegal activities? imho you need to have a lot of trust in mankind to do something like that. Yes, it can be the right choice sometimes, but it can't ALWAYS be the right choice.

Imagine this situation: you're after some crazy terrorist and it's your only chance to get him, too bad he's taken a hostage and is using him as a shield. In a "real" situation your options would be:
renegade: let the hostage die and get the criminal
paragon: save the hostage but let the terrorist escape (and who knows, in the future he may bomb a school or something and end many more innocent lives)
What happens in most ME choices is this:
renegade: let the hostage die and get the criminal
paragon: save the hostage, still manage to catch the bad guy and in the next ME you get to meet the man you saved who will have a beer with you and maybe even help you with some intel on the mission

What I want to say is that the outcome of difficult moral choices should be more unpredictable. It's right to receive big rewards when you choose to trust a criminal who really wants out or to be able to save the hostage and take the terrorist, but there should also be the risk that the criminal was lying just to save his life and that the terrorist runs away if you save the hostage (this actually happened in bring down the sky, and that's why I really enjoyed that dlc)

Modifié par K3lg4r, 16 mai 2011 - 01:18 .

[Darth Death]

"Renegade players" & "Paragon players"... Those labels don't make any sense to me.

[Someone With Mass]

Just because you are Renegade doesn't mean you have to like or accept all the Renegade choices.

That usually makes you blindly follow the beaten path.

[K3lg4r]

Nyoka wrote...

K3lg4r, there is a very similar situation in ME: Balak. And you can't save the hostages if you get Balak. It would be nice if you could come up with actual examples from the game.

You're right, and I was just editing my post to say that.
An actual example from the game is in the shadow broker dlc I just finished the other day. when the asari spectre takes the girl hostage, if you don't have enough paragon or renegade points (I didn't) you can drop the thermal clips or shoot the hostage. I chose the first and still managed to kill the asari.
The best way to balance things would be by making paragon choices high risk/high reward and renegade choices low risk/low reward. So if you do a full paragon playthrough you'll screw up big a few times but receive big rewards for the right choices and people will like you. On the other hand renegades won't risk catastrophes and will get the job done most of the times, but they will miss something for never taking a risk and a lot of people probably won't like them.
This would also encourage more personal choices and different playthroughs from player to player.

Modifié par K3lg4r, 16 mai 2011 - 01:37 .

[Ieldra]

@Nyoka:

No that's not it at all. It is a matter of how the ME universe works: is it one where being nice always works? Where there is never any conflict between the intuitive good and the necessary? Because choosing the intuitive good always works out? Then it is not like the real world in a very important aspect, and that will break the immersion.

Or is it one where hard choices are sometimes necessary? Where a few lives don't matter in the face of galactic extinction, and sacrificing them is a choice that should be taken, as in Arrival, except there it isn't a choice. And it isn't a choice because Bioware didn't want to present Paragons with a non-standard game over, because you can be sure they'd have tried to wriggle out of it.

It's a matter of believability. If almost all Paragon decisions turn out to have ONLY desirable consequences, and all Renegade decisions turn out to have ONLY undesirable consequences, then it is not believable that anyone would be a Renegade in this universe. And neither could I believe in such a universe.
(Don't name minor tings as Renegade interrupts. A few less enemies in one minor battle count for nothing against the one-sidedness in the big picture decisions)

If nobody likes me for my Renegade decisions I can deal with that. The world is stupid and people want to be lied to after all, especially about unpleasant necessities. But I'd expect to get some pragmatic benefit from the decisions I made. At least sometimes taking the safe route instead of the nice one should turn out right. At least sometimes placing strategic benefit over intuitive morality should turn out to be *EXACTLY* what was needed. At the same time, *sometimes* the risks of taking a gamble with another's goodwill should backfire.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 mai 2011 - 01:47 .

[Minister of Sound]

DPSSOC wrote...

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).

The idea Rachni Husks of potentially not appearing in some playthroughs isn't unprecendented because there have been games with enemies that players never encountered. Therefore, it isn't unrealistic to think Rachni may not appear.

Don't judge other games solely on the standards of games that you have played or preferred.

Modifié par Minister of Sound, 16 mai 2011 - 02:45 .

[Guitar-Hero]

Darth Death wrote...

"Renegade players" & "Paragon players"... Those labels don't make any sense to me.

Agreed, for me it ruins the freedom to role-play by adding these labels "i have to pick this option otherwise i won't get 10+ renegade" hopefully they improve it. 

[lovgreno]

Bullies and jerks are usualy losers in real life so why should it be different in this game? Then again there is no real "punishment" or "reward" for any renegade or paragon decisions. Both options usualy involves a heavy risk... But the priiize! In short, both renegade and paragon choices are gambles, deal with it if it bites back.

[Ahglock]

AshiraShepard wrote...


Pretty much this. Just to remind.

I play a Paragade anyway, most of my big choices are Paragon, and my Shep only becomes cruel and ruthless with criminals or monsters.

Like others have noted, if you're a straight renegade you've likely murdered when you could've saved, let people die when you could've saved them (Jacob's LM, sick batarian, wounded salarian) among others. I mean I feel like a dick if I don't do something because that's the whole point; you could've done better. And you didn't.

Actually a lot of those example are reasons they did things wrong in the pargon/renegade system.  The reason it sucks is there was no cost in any of those examples.  Sure saving the girl in jacob's loyalty mission is a no brainer in pretty much every situation I can think of for both renegades or paragons, but the other 2 examples are just badly done.

 I always save them since I am questioning them, and dead people tend to shut up.  But whatever your motivation for saving them, there is no cost.  If you used medigel then it would be a paragon choice.  Since there is no cost and it is just full win it really isn't a choice.  It is how they frequently do renegades poorly.  Renegade isn't supposed to be capriciously cruel, he is supposed to be ruthlessly practical.  When there is no cost to a "paragon" choice and it is just win you turn ruthlessly practical into capriciously cruel.  

So if you options were save the batarian, or sorry I am about to storm the castle and I need all the medigel I have, it would be a real choice.  

[Alraiis]

The Paragon/Renegade system, when it's not being ham-fisted good vs. evil, is often a choice of altruism vs. utilitarianism, or one of selfless idealism vs. rational self-interest. At least, it's supposed to be. Thing is, self-interest should pay off from time to time. Paragons are expected to make sacrifices because they refuse to compromise their ideals (saving the Council costs human lives). Renegades are expected to make sacrifices because they know sometimes you have to do something harsh in the short term for long-term gain. On both sides, there are supposed to be negative consequences and positive ones. Time and again, however, the Renegades don't see the fruits of those hard choices, instead watching situations backfire while Paragons reap rewards and respect.

Indeed, the very ideas of Paragon and Renegade can sometimes be thrown aside to the point where "top-right = good results" and "bottom-right = bad results." Take Tali's loyalty mission, where the Paragon response (not the Charm response, the normal one) is to lie to a legal authority by withholding evidence. Cooperating and handing the evidence over is Renegade. Despite the fact that the virtuous Paragon (should) value honesty and justice, lying to protect your friend is Paragon, even though lying to protect yourself is always Renegade.

[Aumata]

Can someone please tell me how I am losing content? I play renegade, or both of a mix depending on the character, but for the most part I am pretty much renegade. So I am trying to figure out what I am losing out on. For the most part all the stuff I heard, I didn't really care, as I pretty much killed them to make sure they don't comeback. Hell I let the council live, but I didn't realize how cool it was to live in a human dominated council with the cold war brewing. Gonna make my cannon Shepard follow that path , just have to pick which class should I go now. Renegade for life.

[DPSSOC]

Minister of Sound wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
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).

The idea Rachni Husks of potentially not appearing in some playthroughs isn't unprecendented because there have been games with enemies that players never encountered. Therefore, it isn't unrealistic to think Rachni may not appear.

Could you name some of these games (actually interested)?  In my gaming experience there's never been an enemy I can't encounter.  There are some I haven't but that's because I wasn't in a certain area at a certain level (Fallout 3 comes to mind), but I could have.  What you propose is that Bioware will put time and resources into an enemy that some players can't encounter (rather than might not).

I suppose it's possible but I find it highly unlikely; what, for example, would they replace the Rachni with for Renegade players in the same sections of the game?  Would they just create another new enemy to fill the gap?  Well why don't the Paragons see that?  What if a player doesn't meet the criteria for either enemy what do they get?  And on, and on, and on, it's just a logistics nightmare much simpler, and less costly, to use the plausible explanation for those who did kill the Rachni Queen to still run into Rachni husks.

lovgreno wrote...
In short, both renegade and paragon choices are gambles, deal with it if it bites back.

No.  Because this isn't a game of chance we're playing it's a game where the decisions we've made were planned out by human beings with intent.  Bioware screwed up the balance, not for the Renegade players but the Paragons.  You take the same gambles Renegades do, face the same choices, and suffer no negative consequences for doing so.

I've said it time and again both sides do get what they sought out to achieve; human dominance of the Council, a galaxy free of the threat of another Rachni War, a drastic reduction in the galaxy's criminal population; Renegades get it all.  However our dominance is hollow because we cannot actually compel the races to stand with us and as such stand alone, stronger than we were, but alone.  Our victory against the Rachni is bitter (for the player not Shepard) knowing we killed a certain ally.  Last the criminals are meaningless because as always there are more scum to replace them.  Renegade victory is amazingly, deliciously, bitter-sweet and I would have it no other way.

However one must look to the Paragons, who gain much and lose nothing.  You sacrifice human lives to save ungrateful alien bureaucrats, and no one expresses outrage.  You ressurect one of the most dangerous species the galaxy has ever known, and no one seems to care.  You let career criminals run free, and none of them ever re-offend.  Throwing a coin in a machine knowing it will always give you double your money is not gambling my friend.

[Manic Sheep]

The lack of renegade cameos was a slight annoyance not a rage worthy. So long as that trend doesn’t continue and get worse in ME3 its fine. I don’t think anyone really wants to miss out on content.  Even additional content for a “negative consequence” is a reward for the player. The results of main choices so far( (tho as I have said before we won't know until ME3 what the full effects are) do seem unbalanced in terms of cost/ benefit but generally I like the renegade outcome more anyway. I want some of the paragon choices to have more negative outcomes because it would make paragon more interesting to me, my paragon should be sacrificing something for their ideals not because it’s unfair to the renegades. I don't think anything has actually backfired on the renegades apart from maybe the base but we won't know if there is actually a benefit to keeping it until ME3. Since many of the renegade choices involve removing a threat right there and then there aren’t really many additional benefits they could give you because anyone’s who life was saved because of that wouldn’t know. Taking down balak for example. Your reward is that he isn't going to do it again and kill more people.

The whole “paragons get all the praise and the renegades get all the hate" is blown out of proportion by some. They could have evened it up, like having some humans pissy at the paragon for sacrificing human lives to save the council but for the most part renegade shouldn't be as well like as paragon. The only time I think bioware really did go too far with that was the base choice where every single squad mate disagrees regardless of what they say in the base itself. Renegade is an anti hero, anti heroes usually are not liked by the general public. Allot of the stuff you do is not very nice to say the least and you shouldn't be expecting many to praise you for it.  Isn't that part of the point anyway? I thought renegade was the one who suppose to do all the nasty things that 'need to be done' in order to save the galaxy despite what others think of you and I would assume if you are picking the renegade choices you don't a want an optimistic and nice story.
Edit: whoops some major typos

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 17 mai 2011 - 07:02 .