380 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

CH = Casey Hudson on Paragon/Renegade choices for Mass Effect 3
GS = Gamespot interviewer

CH:  "It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.'  It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end."

GS:  "and then you have to deal with those consequences"

CH:  "that's right"

9:32


So there may be a reason to role-play for the best outcome afterall (particularly the first sentence)....  They sure haven't done that yet, so far the Blue button has always been the most beneficial button.

Then again it still wouldn't surprise me if the Paragon choices end up being the most favored choices of the game once more.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 05:47 .

[Labrev]

Still whining I see.

I always thought it was a stupid allegation that "BW favors paragons" especially when you look at the fact that they go for very high replay-value from the beginning. Different classes, different backgrounds, different genders for different gameplay experience. If they made one morality the "right answer" and one the "wrong answer" then the RPG aspect wouldn't support that, everyone would go back and replay the same thing. No point in that.

Not to mention the fact that up to now, all decisions that have been made so far have had little-to-no outcome on anything we've seen in the game. For example, there's really very little difference at all between the old council and new one. And it made 0 difference on the story in the end.

The real problem is that people lack the stones to stand behind their decisions. I've made several renegade decisions myself and the ME2 repercussions have not changed my mind on them even if they were "positive" (Helena Blake comes to mind). You shouldn't need to have to see a cameo in the game to feel validated. Otherwise, making hard decisions is not for you.

There are definitely lots of issues with the morality system in place, but bias is not one of them.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Replay value has nothing to do with this issue... and it's not about "right" and "wrong" choices, both accomplish their objectives. But the problem that defeates the notion of a "hard choice" is when the Paragon choices have yielded "better" results every time with regard to content, lives lost, and positive validation is concerned.

It's not a "hard decision" if you know that the Paragon option = the best option. If your goal is to save the most lives (for example) then just hit the blue button, it doesn't matter what the choice is... that's the issue I'm "whining" about.

There's never been a time where the Renegade choice has yielded "Better" end results than making a Paragon choice thusfar... and that's an unfortunate and clear bias.


And for the record, the scope of features Bioware offers is no excuse for Paragon favoritism.  It is what it is.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 10:32 .

[jamesp81]

Hah Yes Reapers is right.

Increasingly I'm seeing that Paragon vs Renegade is more about how you wish to experience the story and how you wish to go about achieving your goals, than it is about affecting the outcome of major events. Consider that in ME1, no matter what choices you made, completing the campaign means Saren is killed, Sovereign is killed, and the galaxy is saved. The political backdrop can change in a minor fashion and the fate of certain minor characters can vary, but the outcome overall is the same. Same for ME2. If you complete the campaign, the goals of Stopping the Collectors and Saving Human Colonies is achieved. The only thing that changes is the outcome for your crew and for Shepard himself on a personal level.

Be prepared to see the same in ME3. Paragon vs renegade decisions might change how some missions go down and how you go about achieving the campaign's primary goal. However, I suspect the fate of Earth and the galaxy at large is already sealed by Bioware's writers.  The very biggest difference you might see between ME3 and the others is that choices from the previous two games might seal the fate of certain characters in ME3.  Still, I think there will be a path to completing the campaign no matter what decisions you'd made previously.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 juin 2011 - 12:42 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

jamesp81 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers is right.

Increasingly I'm seeing that Paragon vs Renegade is more about how you wish to experience the story and how you wish to go about achieving your goals, than it is about affecting the outcome of major events. Consider that in ME1, no matter what choices you made, completing the campaign means Saren is killed, Sovereign is killed, and the galaxy is saved. The political backdrop can change in a minor fashion and the fate of certain minor characters can vary, but the outcome overall is the same. Same for ME2. If you complete the campaign, the goals of Stopping the Collectors and Saving Human Colonies is achieved. The only thing that changes is the outcome for your crew and for Shepard himself on a personal level.

Be prepared to see the same in ME3. Paragon vs renegade decisions might change how some missions go down and how you go about achieving the campaign's primary goal. However, I suspect the fate of Earth and the galaxy at large is already sealed by Bioware's writers.  The very biggest difference you might see between ME3 and the others is that choices from the previous two games might seal the fate of certain characters in ME3.  Still, I think there will be a path to completing the campaign no matter what decisions you'd made previously.

The issue under discussion isn't about the things both Paragons and Renegades share... it's what is different about them.

If one choice always provides more saved lives, more positive validation, and more actual game content, then it removes the notion of making a "hard choice" for the greater good... when the short-term moral choice always saves the most lives, provides the most content, and show the most positive validation of your actions.

You both are assuming I'm taking this much farther than I actually am.  They're not "win" and "fail" buttons (the Paragon/Renegade decisions).  But one has always resulted in the best outcome thusfar... regardless of the odds or situation surrounding it.  That's the Paragon Favoritism I'm talking about.  

[Medhia Nox]

I fully expect that the "destroy Collector base" to be the Paragon choice that can bite Shepard in the butt. At least - that's how I would tell the story.

Pragmatically - the Collector base is invaluable, but it's built on filth and death. It's "wrong" as Shepard himself says - but, Shepard's own blind idealism (which TIM criticizes him for if you choose to blow it up) might actually cause far more damage to the universe at the expense of "right action".

====

Conversely - I think destroying the "Heretic" Geth might actually be best when the Renegade choice is taken.

Legion says plainly that once the two factions of Geth are integrated - they'll both be "the same". Meaning that they'll both have memories of serving the Old Machines. Which means their "logic engines" could then all universally be "hacked" and the Geth are once again in slavery to the Reapers - or, perhaps universally destroyed.

I think the Renegade option saves the "good" Geth - while the Paragon would have been "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[jamesp81]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers is right.

Increasingly I'm seeing that Paragon vs Renegade is more about how you wish to experience the story and how you wish to go about achieving your goals, than it is about affecting the outcome of major events. Consider that in ME1, no matter what choices you made, completing the campaign means Saren is killed, Sovereign is killed, and the galaxy is saved. The political backdrop can change in a minor fashion and the fate of certain minor characters can vary, but the outcome overall is the same. Same for ME2. If you complete the campaign, the goals of Stopping the Collectors and Saving Human Colonies is achieved. The only thing that changes is the outcome for your crew and for Shepard himself on a personal level.

Be prepared to see the same in ME3. Paragon vs renegade decisions might change how some missions go down and how you go about achieving the campaign's primary goal. However, I suspect the fate of Earth and the galaxy at large is already sealed by Bioware's writers.  The very biggest difference you might see between ME3 and the others is that choices from the previous two games might seal the fate of certain characters in ME3.  Still, I think there will be a path to completing the campaign no matter what decisions you'd made previously.

The issue under discussion isn't about the things both Paragons and Renegades share... it's what is different about them.

If one choice always provides more saved lives, more positive validation, and more actual game content, then it removes the notion of making a "hard choice" for the greater good... when the short-term moral choice always saves the most lives, provides the most content, and show the most positive validation of your actions.

You both are assuming I'm taking this much farther than I actually am.  They're not "win" and "fail" buttons (the Paragon/Renegade decisions).  But one has always resulted in the best outcome thusfar... regardless of the odds or situation surrounding it.  That's the Paragon Favoritism I'm talking about.  

I think you're missing what I'm saying.

Renegades contend that the more "moral" choices (and paragon decisions are not uniformly the most moral or most just ones, IMO) are obviously the best ones since they result in a better outcome and, thus, why would anyone take a renegade choice?  I think this is a misunderstanding of the entire renegade/paragon system.

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

Edit:

I don't see CH's comments as being particularly revolutionary.  That's more or less how the whole series has been up to this point.  Past decisions may have non-obvious consequences in ME3 that relates to the fate of Shepard or his crew, but I think everyone kind of assumed that from a long way back anyway.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 juin 2011 - 01:56 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Then take off the blinders, son.

[jamesp81]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I fully expect that the "destroy Collector base" to be the Paragon choice that can bite Shepard in the butt. At least - that's how I would tell the story.

Pragmatically - the Collector base is invaluable, but it's built on filth and death. It's "wrong" as Shepard himself says - but, Shepard's own blind idealism (which TIM criticizes him for if you choose to blow it up) might actually cause far more damage to the universe at the expense of "right action".

====

Conversely - I think destroying the "Heretic" Geth might actually be best when the Renegade choice is taken.

Legion says plainly that once the two factions of Geth are integrated - they'll both be "the same". Meaning that they'll both have memories of serving the Old Machines. Which means their "logic engines" could then all universally be "hacked" and the Geth are once again in slavery to the Reapers - or, perhaps universally destroyed.

I think the Renegade option saves the "good" Geth - while the Paragon would have been "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The Collector Base decision is actually the one decision I have the hardest time making, which indicates it was a well written choice.  I can list off a lot of very damned good reasons for both choices.  Ultimately, I've generally gone for destruction, but I loathe to let slip by an opportunity to study working Reaper tech, despite the dangers.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then take off the blinders, son.

huh:huh:

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then take off the blinders, son.

huh:huh:

If you can't see another person's viewpoint, take off the blinders. You don't have to agree with it, but if you can't understand someone else's viewpoint... that's something only you can change about yourself.

[LorDC]

jamesp81 wrote...
I think you're missing what I'm saying.

Renegades contend that the more "moral" choices (and paragon decisions are not uniformly the most moral or most just ones, IMO) are obviously the best ones since they result in a better outcome and, thus, why would anyone take a renegade choice?  I think this is a misunderstanding of the entire renegade/paragon system.

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

Edit:

I don't see CH's comments as being particularly revolutionary.  That's more or less how the whole series has been up to this point.  Past decisions may have non-obvious consequences in ME3 that relates to the fate of Shepard or his crew, but I think everyone kind of assumed that from a long way back anyway.

If Paragon and Renegade stories were separate you would be right. Renegade players don't want just grimdark but justified grimdark. And when you know that Paragons will achieve the same results without any hassle it's hard to justify your decision. CH spelled it out right: Renegades are those who are willing to make sacrifices. But when sacrifice isn't necessary it becomes pointless massacre. That's where the problem lies.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then take off the blinders, son.

huh:huh:

If you can't see another person's viewpoint, take off the blinders. You don't have to agree with it, but if you can't understand someone else's viewpoint... that's something only you can change about yourself.

Riiiiggght <_<

[jamesp81]

LorDC wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
I think you're missing what I'm saying.

Renegades contend that the more "moral" choices (and paragon decisions are not uniformly the most moral or most just ones, IMO) are obviously the best ones since they result in a better outcome and, thus, why would anyone take a renegade choice?  I think this is a misunderstanding of the entire renegade/paragon system.

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

Edit:

I don't see CH's comments as being particularly revolutionary.  That's more or less how the whole series has been up to this point.  Past decisions may have non-obvious consequences in ME3 that relates to the fate of Shepard or his crew, but I think everyone kind of assumed that from a long way back anyway.

If Paragon and Renegade stories were separate you would be right. Renegade players don't want just grimdark but justified grimdark. And when you know that Paragons will achieve the same results without any hassle it's hard to justify your decision. CH spelled it out right: Renegades are those who are willing to make sacrifices. But when sacrifice isn't necessary it becomes pointless massacre. That's where the problem lies.

An issue here is that Paragons don't want grimdark at all.  If we did, we could always go play Starcraft Brood Wars, after all.

I don't see that there's any real solution to this.  BW is trying to appeal to players that prefer vastly different playstyles and storylines and they're doing the best they can.  Maybe it would've been better if they had decided, at the beginning, whether this story was going to be a depressing tragic one, or a classic heroic epic, and stuck with that  They didn't, however, and so here we are.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 juin 2011 - 02:58 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, it's not like anyone else is going to do it for you.

Don't be a lazy bum.

[MastaPasta]

Just wanna point out, that renegade can actually be better sometimes.

Example- on the krogan home planet, for modrins loyalty mission, the renegade option to shoot a fuel tank made the fight alot easier. renegade option to take out the mechanic when recruiting garrus made it alot easier. renegade option in zaeeds loyalty mission to not save the workers gains his loyalty, and you need charm skill to get it back if you're a paragon.

[jamesp81]

MastaPasta wrote...

Just wanna point out, that renegade can actually be better sometimes.

Example- on the krogan home planet, for modrins loyalty mission, the renegade option to shoot a fuel tank made the fight alot easier. renegade option to take out the mechanic when recruiting garrus made it alot easier. renegade option in zaeeds loyalty mission to not save the workers gains his loyalty, and you need charm skill to get it back if you're a paragon.

Also, the mercenary on Illium that you can either shoot, or let escape.  Renegade is better because she's the murderer, and the renegade option lets you kill her.  Paragon she escapes.

[Dean_the_Young]

MastaPasta wrote...

Just wanna point out, that renegade can actually be better sometimes.

Example- on the krogan home planet, for modrins loyalty mission, the renegade option to shoot a fuel tank made the fight alot easier. renegade option to take out the mechanic when recruiting garrus made it alot easier. renegade option in zaeeds loyalty mission to not save the workers gains his loyalty, and you need charm skill to get it back if you're a paragon.

Interrupts are available to all players regardless, and really don't reflect delimma choices. Paragon interrupts often help in the sense of getting information.

Zaeed's LM choice is subverted by the Paragon persuade afterwards. Compare that to the, say, Tali LM, where there is no post-Renegade choice (expose the father) Renegade persuade, and there's still a notable imbalance... particularly when Zaeed's loyalty check isn't even that high.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

MastaPasta wrote...

Just wanna point out, that renegade can actually be better sometimes.

Example- on the krogan home planet, for modrins loyalty mission, the renegade option to shoot a fuel tank made the fight alot easier. renegade option to take out the mechanic when recruiting garrus made it alot easier. renegade option in zaeeds loyalty mission to not save the workers gains his loyalty, and you need charm skill to get it back if you're a paragon.

Interrupts are available to all players regardless, and really don't reflect delimma choices. Paragon interrupts often help in the sense of getting information.

Zaeed's LM choice is subverted by the Paragon persuade afterwards. Compare that to the, say, Tali LM, where there is no post-Renegade choice (expose the father) Renegade persuade, and there's still a notable imbalance... particularly when Zaeed's loyalty check isn't even that high.

In Zaheed's mission, the merc/pirate leader Zaheed was after still gets away with the paragon option though, and that is more likely to end up a negative than saving the workers is.

In Tali's mission you get a nasty email from Xen, since the truth is still on the research vessel (why Shepard goes that route without properly destroying all the evidence I don't entirely understand). So that one could still end up negative.

The SM is winnable with neither Zaheed nor Tali's loyalty, so I argue that doing their loyalty missions at all is paragon and not renegade. The extra losses are just the 'neccessary sacrifices' to reduce the risk of the mission.

I am not holding my breath on it, but it would be nice to find out in ME3 that those who got to the Collectors sooner (fewer loyalty missions) had fewer colonies lost over the course of ME2.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Well, it's not like anyone else is going to do it for you.

Don't be a lazy bum.

There is a fine line between telling someone they don't understand a question and telling someone they have to agree with the question. You are really pushing that line.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Well, it's not like anyone else is going to do it for you.

Don't be a lazy bum.

There is a fine line between telling someone they don't understand a question and telling someone they have to agree with the question. You are really pushing that line.

Pretty obviously from the proper side, giving the other post in this very thread.

Contextual awareness never was your strongest point.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

jamesp81 wrote...

I think you're missing what I'm saying.

Renegades contend that the more "moral" choices (and paragon decisions are not uniformly the most moral or most just ones, IMO) are obviously the best ones since they result in a better outcome and, thus, why would anyone take a renegade choice?  I think this is a misunderstanding of the entire renegade/paragon system.

Paragon choices are the short-term moral "right" of that given moment.  Always has been and have always boiled down to that.  Outside factors are irrelevant to the viewpoint. 

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

Renegades don't want an unhappy ending, lol.  Where'd you get that idea from?  The results compared to Paragons?

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

Edit:

I don't see CH's comments as being particularly revolutionary.  That's more or less how the whole series has been up to this point.  Past decisions may have non-obvious consequences in ME3 that relates to the fate of Shepard or his crew, but I think everyone kind of assumed that from a long way back anyway.

Okay, read this very carefully:

Renegades are supposed to be those who "sacrifice for the greater good."  That's exactly what Casey Hudson was talking about.  If there's no greater good for making that decision or sacrifice (compared to a choice they could have made.... like the Paragon choice), it defeats the purpose of making a tough choice.  Just pick the short-term moral "right" of the time and all will work out the best that they can.  The greatest "good" has always come from Paragon choices.

There's been nothing (in the game) demonstrated to be an advantageous outcome to making a Renegade decision compared to a Paragon one... which means the game favors Paragon choices (because they do have demonstrated advantages in-game/in-story).  Paragon favoritism... that's all I'm saying.

And these complaints are going out because I'd rather not "know" that the best outcome will result from the blue button no matter what the choice is and no matter how the odds are stacked.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 06:49 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

jamesp81 wrote...
...

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

...

If there is no need to make those sacrifices, then all the "hard choices" just become a choice between better and worse outcomes.  The choice between paragon and renegade shouldn't be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Having two parallel universes in-game where if you choose to trust someone they turn out to be good, and if you choose to not trust them they turn out bad isn't compelling.

I can think of a recent game that kind of does this:  In Starcraft II WoL, there is a mission where the protagonist (Raynor) has a choice between helping a group of aliens (Protoss) wipe out a human colony which is suspected to be infested (by another kind of aliens, there is no cure and the infected become mindless thralls that go about infecting others), or to defend the colonists from the aliens.  One of Raynors crew strongly advocates for protecting the colonists (Dr. Ariel Hansen).
 - Should Raynor decide to protect the colonists, he sends the Protoss packing as normal humans escape to shuttles.  He and Dr. Hansen also share a touching goodbye as she chooses to stay with the colonists.  Sunshine and bunnies and all that, and hints at a future romance.

 - If Raynor sides with the Protoss, instead he wipes out a colony that is completely infested and hostile.  Upon return to the ship, Dr. Hansen turns out to be infested as well and Raynor has to put her down.

It shouldn't be like this, it cheapens the experience.  I'm not saying that all or even half of the renegade decisions should turn out better in the long run, just some of them (including some of the major decisions).

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 09 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[Nightwriter]

jamesp81 wrote...

I think you're missing what I'm saying.

Renegades contend that the more "moral" choices (and paragon decisions are not uniformly the most moral or most just ones, IMO) are obviously the best ones since they result in a better outcome and, thus, why would anyone take a renegade choice?  I think this is a misunderstanding of the entire renegade/paragon system.

Renegades get mad and want to punish paragons because our stories turn out to be more heroic.  Renegade stories turn out darker and grittier......which is exactly what renegade players seem to want.  Renegades want a darker, grittier, unhappy, stereotypical grimdark story and the renegade path gives them the opportunity to play it that way.  Paragons want a more stereotypical heroic path and story, and paragon decisions let us experience the game that way.

I don't see why renegades complain so much.  You claim to want a grittier, more grimdark story, and the option to experience the story in that manner is right there in front of you, to the lower right.  But that's not enough for you.  You all demand that paragon players be dragged along whether they want to be or not, which would completely invalidate the entire paragon/renegade system.

It seems I have been mistaken, then.

I thought renegades were complaining about less content, not less heroism.