66 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Is to label them as Paragon and Renegade.


Most famous example is Legion's LM.

In game Paragon response is kinda like: I can't commit genocide. It's best to just reprogram them not to worship Reapers.
While Renegade: That's a heavy risk to reprogram them. What if they revert it? Destroy them!


But same choice can have reverted reasons.

Paragon: If I reprogram them I'm destroying them anyway. We should blow them up. I wouldn't want to someone brainwash me. I would rather get bullet to the head.
Renegade: HA! I'll use Reaper lackeys against them! Bring on the virus Legion!



See what I did there?

This I can do with the Council.

Paragon: We must save the Council at all costs! They are valuable to aliens.
Renegade: Risk the fleet to save Council and lose it against Sovereign? Not happening!

or

Paragon: We can't risk the fleet for the Council. Too many lives are at the stake.
Renegade: Roll in the fleet to save the Council! Those bastards will be grateful for that!



Now this isn't some new news but still, it's not discussed much.
And this is big problem in both game and community( Punishing Paragons thread for example).

I mean, this can be fixed easily.

Here are 3 ways:

1. Give us 4 dialogue choices for 2 actual choices.

On left you have destroy the Geth Heretics, up is Paragon and down is Renegade response.
On right you have reprogram the Geth Heretics, up is Paragon and down is Renegade response.


2. Give us 2 choices like before but then you get to say why. Then you get additional 2 responses after that, Paragon and Renegade one.


3. Give us 2 choices, but after the mission we explain to character why we did it. Paragon or Renegade.




So can this work out in ME3?
No longer to be specifically Paragon on Renegade do to main choices are like that?

[LPPrince]

Paragon and Renegade is just a label. I say keep them for main choices.

[VolusNamedBob]

What I tend to do with morality in games is ignore them, and just pay attention to my own. I choose my own decisions, that's how I roll.

EDIT: Although I do think that such choices as Legion's shouldn't be labelled.

Modifié par VolusNamedBob, 14 juin 2011 - 07:32 .

[Babli]

P/R is absolutely useless. Yes, they say that renegade is not evil, but so far paragons got always better results. The very idea of calling decisions "that" and "that" is wrong and its just good&evil put in different words. Its too idealistic for my taste.

[Warheadz]

The main problem with the choices anyways are the Paragon/Renegade points. You constantly need more Paragon points so you can take the paragon options and choices. In the end, you might not care about the morality of the choice anymore as the game tells you what is Paragon and what is Renegade. And since the game tells you this, you also know what the game and its world and characters will recognize as good. Aside from few exceptions.

They should never had those points to begin with -_______________________-

[Whatever42]

I'm not sure there is any great way to work a darkside/lightside mechanic into a game with nuanced ethical or political decisions. When your system is black and white but most of the decisions are grey then you have something intrinsically unworkable.

Now, they did define some positions for renegade/paragon such as their views on inter-species cooperation and on how ruthless they will be in pursuit of a goal but as you pointed out very well, many decisions in the game are completely independent of those positions.

I suspect this might be the last time we see a darkside/lightside mechanic in a Bioware game.

[xIxDarkWolfxIx]

To be honest I agree with you. However when I play I completely ignore the in-game morality. If I am playing my main Shepard who is based upon my self then I just follow that. If I am playing a Role-Playing Shepard then I create his/her own beliefs and ideals. It can be a very simple belief that can then become complex. Two examples on a scale are;
-I believe that Humanity is in it for itself.
-I believe that the Council represents the best of the Galaxy.

Then you can change the degree as to which your character agrees. With the first statement, it can range from Pro-Alliance to Pro-Cerberus. There is scope.

And I know I went completely off topic but I thought I should say it anyway.

[Nashiktal]

VolusNamedBob wrote...

What I tend to do with morality in games is ignore them, and just pay attention to my own. I choose my own decisions, that's how I roll.

EDIT: Although I do think that such choices as Legion's shouldn't be labelled.

You see, I would do that except for one problem... I get locked out of the nice persasion options. If you don't play the game a certain way without bonuses, you were very likely to lose loyalty of Miranda/jack or Legion/Tali (I have a problem with the loyalty system to, but thats a different issue) you might have also had trouble with some of the other persuasion options, but the loyalty thing was the biggest issue with the morality bars.

Oh and scars. What if you wanted those kickass scars? Well you have to be an ass.

There are just far too many problems with the morality bars, even outside of roleplaying.

[jamesp81]

There are undoubtedly a lot of issues with the Para/Rene system. But I don't know how it could be improved upon, either.

[Shepard Lives]

I disagree. Your first example, the geth base, is the only case where both Paragon and Renegade have valid reasons to make either decision. The Council example just feels forced.

[Xalen]

Oh hey, I've just written two posts with almost the same premise! Well, why not repeat here:

The problem is that the game recognizes only the action, but not the rationale behind it. Why doing X gives you paragon points? Because Bioware said so. Even if doing X fits very well in "get the job done" morality ("Concentrate on the Sovereign" is a spectacular example of this, imo). Really, I can think of a "Renegade" reasons for most "Paragon" choices, but the game will still treat me like paragon for that. 
Morality system can and should be a RP tool for defining personality, but major decisions should be left up to the player only and not tied to it.

Modifié par Xalen, 14 juin 2011 - 08:18 .

[Warkupo]

Paragon and Renegade very clearly define themselves as Paragon being the option to save lives, and Renegade being the option to end them. Paragon's are more likely to go the route of diplomacy, and Renegades are more likely to go the route of violence. Paragon is more likely to be gentle, Renegade is more likely to be tough. I don't see this trend broken very often, nor is it being broken with your examples.

Modifié par Warkupo, 14 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[SLooPPy JOE]

I agree with OP.

My personal imput:
I think Dragon Age Origins handled choices much better. If you have to intimidate someone (the equivalent of a renegade option where the text is red) your ability to intimidate them depends on your strength. A physical attribute makes sense for how well you could intimidate someone. They're not going to say "oh I'm so scared of you because of those renegade choices you made a few missions ago that I don't know about!" I really don't get why my renegade/paragon points should dictate what I can say.

Modifié par SLooPPy JOE, 14 juin 2011 - 08:24 .

[88mphSlayer]

the legion example is entertaining because it contradicts who legion had to say about the collectors

what's the difference between rewriting the geth and rewriting the protheans?

for moments like these there should be no blue/red option, just make it all white without any paragon/renegade + score

[CroGamer002]

88mphSlayer wrote...

the legion example is entertaining because it contradicts who legion had to say about the collectors

what's the difference between rewriting the geth and rewriting the protheans?

for moments like these there should be no blue/red option, just make it all white without any paragon/renegade + score

wut?

[Zulmoka531]

I've always sort of toyed with this notion. Making things tied to para/rene always had that sort of dark side/light side feel (the coloring choice didn't help dammit!).

I made choices irrelevant of what morality they were tied to, based on what I thought was right versus wrong. It made some charm/intimidate choices tougher to achieve but I still managed to get what I wanted out of the story in the end (for now).

[PsychoWARD23]

Agreed, I've been saying this for a while now.

[Repearized Miranda]

 I don't think it was a mistake. Here's why:

I doubt that any player is 100% in either direction! I hear that argument, but the reason for that is: "Only Sheperd is playing and not you though YOU ARE Sheperd!"

I'm sure some would say they would take the P/R path (make all good/bad choices), but I doubt any player has done that. Maybe just to see what would happen if done that way, but how many punched that reporter or sold that guy's "friends" to a Krogan?

Even in real life, how often do people say: "Though what was done was bad, the person who did it, isn't?"

Shep did this, but would YOU do that?

Consequences are enevitable!! Good causes don't necessarily = likewise effects. That is what they've been getting at! Paragons may not save the world while renegades may not have it destroyed!

I think they wanted the players to consider/experience the variables and consequences of each instead of going to either extreme.

[TheCrakFox]

Paragon and renegade meters are a bad idea altogether, and having your score affect your persuasion just makes it worse.

I actually played Legion's LM yesterday, and I also disagree with the choices BioWare labelled paragon and renegade.

[Da Mecca]

Paragon and Renegade should have never been implemented.

You can't polarize morality, it's too ambiguous.

[AcidRelic]

Actually I like the Idea of doing one of 2 things but have a paragon and renegade reason for both.

If not that then randomize the choices and live with what you pick, no always choosing top or bottom.

If not that then get rid of it altogether.

[joltmajor]

I kinda agree. I think a solution could beto let the game continue to use binary morality choices (ew), but simply don't inform the player which is which...

Modifié par joltmajor, 14 juin 2011 - 10:15 .

[PiercedMonk]

The Paragon/Renegade system is not about personal morality but rather how othrs would perceive your actions.I think of it in terms of an outside observer watching Shepard, and thinking, "He seems like a pretty decent dude," or, "Wow, what a dick," completely divorced from whatever rationale you might have had for your actions.

Which is why you're able to use your Paragon or Renegade status to influence others. The extra dialogue options are a reflection of how Shepard is percieved. It's reputation, not rational. Shepard's willig to sucker punch an unarmed woman because s/he doesn't like the questions being asked? People are probably going to tread lightly lest they end up getting shot in the face. Word gets around that Shepard was willing to put his own life at risk by only knocking out and not killing any of the colonists under the thorian's control? That earns respect, and people are going to be more willing to listen to what s/he has to say.

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than a lot of morality systems out there.