48 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprea]

I have noticed some complaints about how Renegade seems to lose more then Paragon does for one reason or the other. Now I'm not going to argue the logic of it but I do feel it has been slightly scewed in Paragon's favor. So I'm wondering is there time enough and does Bioware have the inclination to sneak in some kind of additional burden?

What I have in mind is something along these lines. Much like when confronting the mercenary Elnora they give you some sob story claim not to have done anything wrong and asked you to let them go. Now with limited time to evaulate the situation you show a bit of good faith if you go the Paragon way and let them go. At which time you get shot in the back literally.

Now for the duration of the mission you have to endure having something along the lines of 20% reduced health or some such until you can make it back to the Normandi and get treated. After all not everyone you show mercy to is going to be grateful and indeed some would see it as a weakness.

If there should be some reward at the end of the mission for taking the merciful and typically more difficult path I don't know. I would actually prefer if there wasn't an actual measurable reward except perhaps some dialogue and the chance to stay true to your character without having to be given a carrot of some type.

Modifié par Inprea, 16 juin 2011 - 12:51 .

[Saaziel]

The problem then shifts to Paragons , with a 20% health penalty , having a greater challenge.

And you can be sure "Renegades* " will be right here , yet once more , crying foul ; " Why should i have to play Paragon to have a challenge BW? plze phixz Kthx bei. "

The merit of the renegade's lamentations is grossly over exaggerated; You only have a handful of devotees with -Renegade Tourrette Syndrome ©- (RTS for short ) spamming the forums embellishing the problem. For one; The repercussion of choices made are not yet known. And second , the immediate "rewards" are trivial at best ; in-game E-mails & 1/2 a cameo. The only real problem that i can think of is Legion's recruitment /loyalty mission. It shouldn't be tied in to Para/Ren points.

What I'm trying to say is that , most the complaints are from , what the French call ; Les éternels insatisfait . No matter what you do , they'll find something to complain about. Not that your idea isn't good. In cases where its applicable , it could work very well.

* Of course , I'm not saying all Renegades are whiners , just those (Most of them) who claim to speak on behalf of the community.

Modifié par Saaziel, 16 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[ItsThat01Guy]

This would work if Mass Effect had a good/evil morality system.
The Good guys sacrifice for the greater good, and the Bad guys help themselves.

In Mass effect, however, Paragon is "doing the nice thing," and Renegade is "doing the practical thing."

If you let the bad guys go, they shouldn't shoot Shepard right away, they should go on a killing spree later in the game.
There shouldn't be an immediate and temporary punishment that only affects Shepard, like "-20% total health."
There should be a major, long-lasting consequence later in the game that affects many people.

The Paragon should pay for being the "nice guy" when a large number of people suffer for his/her decision.

Of course, the Renegade will pay for being cold-hearted and pragmatic when everybody hates him/her, so it balances itself out.

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 16 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[Whatever42]

Renegade won't be punished in ME3. At worst, they lose a couple trivial interactions with very minor characters if they were hardcore renegade. However, in ME3, the renegade choices will turn out to be just as viable as the paragon choices, just different. No need to hobble paragon in revenge!

[Inprea]

Saaziel wrote...

The problem then shifts to Paragons , with a 20% health penalty , having a greater challenge.

And you can be sure "Renegades* " will be right here , yet once more , crying foul ; " Why should i have to play Paragon to have a challenge BW? plze phixz Kthx bei. "

The merit of the renegade's lamentations is grossly over exaggerated; You only have a handful of devotees with -Renegade Tourrette Syndrome ©- (RTS for short ) spamming the forums embellishing the problem. For one; The repercussion of choices made are not yet known. And second , the immediate "rewards" are trivial at best ; in-game E-mails & 1/2 a cameo. The only real problem that i can think of is Legion's recruitment /loyalty mission. It shouldn't be tied in to Para/Ren points.

What I'm trying to say is that , most the complaints are from , what the French call ; Les éternels insatisfait . No matter what you do , they'll find something to complain about. Not that your idea isn't good. In cases where its applicable , it could work very well.

* Of course , I'm not saying all Renegades are whiners , just those (Most of them) who claim to speak on behalf of the community.

That may be true. Still, I think it'd be a nice chance to see if you're just a fair weather paragon or if you really want to hold onto your alignment. To quote Shepard with Jacob, "It wouldn't be called the high path it was easy."

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

This would work if Mass Effect had a good/evil morality system.
The Good guys sacrifice for the greater good, and the Bad guys help themselves.

In Mass effect, however, Paragon is "doing the nice thing," and Renegade is "doing the practical thing."

If you let the bad guys go, they shouldn't shoot Shepard right away, they should go on a killing spree later in the game.
There shouldn't be an immediate and temporary punishment that only affects Shepard, like "-20% total health."
There should be a major, long-lasting consequence later in the game that affects many people.

The Paragon should pay for being the "nice guy" when a large number of people suffer for his/her decision.

Of course, the Renegade will pay for being cold-hearted and pragmatic when everybody hates him/her, so it balances itself out.../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

Good grief I hope that isn't the case. Though I fully expect my sparing Elnora to bight me in the rump after learning what she did I truly hope I can put a bullet in her head before she harms anyone else. Even knowing that she's a killer though I can't bring myself to play through and use the Renegade interrupt. That's just not the nature I want my fem Shepard to have.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Renegade won't be
punished in ME3. At worst, they lose a couple trivial interactions with
very minor characters if they were hardcore renegade. However, in ME3,
the renegade choices will turn out to be just as viable as the paragon
choices, just different. No need to hobble paragon in revenge!

I'm curious how true that'll be really. It might be interesting to see how Bioware handles you not having the Rachnia to back you up and your struggle to get the Krogan behind you without a unifying leader like Rex. That and well as I recall if you hand legion over to Cerberus who are now working for the reapers it means all Geth were brain washed to want you dead.

[neubourn]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Renegade won't be punished in ME3. At worst, they lose a couple trivial interactions with very minor characters if they were hardcore renegade. However, in ME3, the renegade choices will turn out to be just as viable as the paragon choices, just different. No need to hobble paragon in revenge!

^pretty much this.

I main renegade, and as such, i dont have an issue with the fact that "hey, i killed the Rachni Queen, no email for me." But the gripe is that it seems pretty much any Renegade decision leads to a character dying, and hence no more interaction with them in future games (ME2/3).

What the Renegades want, is balance...either replace some of those characters who are killed with new ones (perfectly viable option, can even make a story as to why they got replaced). For example: killing Rana Thanoptis on Virmire...now you dont get to interact with her in ME2 at Okeer's lab. Which is fine, but they couldve easily inserted a NEW character as his assitant to interact with.

Or to balance it, have some Paragon decision lead to a character dying, doesnt have to be at the hands of Shepard, but it could be a direct result from one of his decisions. It wouldnt be difficult to come up with story elements that result in the death of a charcter due to Shepards Paragon choices. Even if you play the hero, sometimes people die. 

[KiraTsukasa]

ME3 Paragon/Renegade choices:

Paragon- "If I do some menial task for you will you join me to stop the Reapers?"

Renegade- "Help me stop the Reapers and I won't break your legs."

[Alamar2078]

I fully expect that Rana Thanoptis (sp) will bite you in the butt ... heck even some of your squadmates tell you that in game.

The same could apply for Elmora (sp?) ... there might be a whole Spiderman-scenario where you let a bad guy get away then they kill your Uncle Ben [or Anderson or some other NPC or squadmate you might care about] as another poster suggested.

On the other hand I'm kind of tired of seeing a new "Paragons need to get hosed" thread every 10 minutes.

[onelifecrisis]

Inprea wrote...

I have noticed some complaints about how Renegade seems to lose more then Paragon does for one reason or the other. Now I'm not going to argue the logic of it but I do feel it has been slightly scewed in Paragon's favor. So I'm wondering is there time enough and does Bioware have the inclination to sneak in some kind of additional burden?

What I have in mind is something along these lines. Much like when confronting the mercenary Elnora they give you some sob story claim not to have done anything wrong and asked you to let them go. Now with limited time to evaulate the situation you show a bit of good faith if you go the Paragon way and let them go. At which time you get shot in the back literally.

Now for the duration of the mission you have to endure having something along the lines of 20% reduced health or some such until you can make it back to the Normandi and get treated. After all not everyone you show mercy to is going to be grateful and indeed some would see it as a weakness.

If there should be some reward at the end of the mission for taking the merciful and typically more difficult path I don't know. I would actually prefer if there wasn't an actual measurable reward except perhaps some dialogue and the chance to stay true to your character without having to be given a carrot of some type.

The game already has enough restrictions on how much you can roleplay without adding this.

[HogarthHughes 3]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I fully expect that Rana Thanoptis (sp) will bite you in the butt ... heck even some of your squadmates tell you that in game.

The same could apply for Elmora (sp?) ... there might be a whole Spiderman-scenario where you let a bad guy get away then they kill your Uncle Ben [or Anderson or some other NPC or squadmate you might care about] as another poster suggested.

On the other hand I'm kind of tired of seeing a new "Paragons need to get hosed" thread every 10 minutes.

Spiderman let the guy get away because it wasn't his problem, Shepard can let Elnora leave to be merciful.  I see what you mean though and agree with it.  Its all up in the air still, we can't really tell how exactly the Rachni or Collector Base decisions will pan out in ME3.  The best we have are assumptions and hypothesis. 

[azerSheppard]

Stop with the tipping the scales BS, i hate the fact that you have to either go completely paragon or renegade in me2, i hope they fix the damn morale system so people stop whinning about being unfair...

[Bogsnot1]

And how would they explain the sudden penalty? "You let a bad guy live, now suffer 20% butt-hurt until the mission is over"
This is just yet another "waaaah, why only renegades get punished bioware!?!?!" thread.

[Shaun2406]

Hmm I actually thought that Elnora was pretty well handled... Most of the time I play a character with a 'paragon' demeanour (nice to most people) who has a tendency to make renegade decisions when the choices actually matter (that is play pragmatic renegade w/out being particularly unpleasent or forceful unless I deem it absolutely necessary). I don't think there needs to be a physical punishment, Elnora doesn't need to come back as a pyscho mass murderer. The knowlegde that you believed her, let her go, and were wrong to is enough of a 'punishment' for me (that is, not a 'punishment' per se just a 'hey not everyone in the universe is gonna tell you the truth and reform when you give them a chance')

Modifié par Shaun2406, 16 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Ieldra]

Alamar2078 wrote...
On the other hand I'm kind of tired of seeing a new "Paragons need to get hosed" thread every 10 minutes.

Perhaps the prevalence of those threads indicates that there is a problem?

I can summarize the problem like this: if Renegade decisions never result in a pragmatic (storyline-, not gamplay-related) benefit over Paragon decisions, there is no reason whatsover to make Renegade decisions and accept the negative side effects that usually accompany them. This aiso damages the believability of the universe as a whole, because "the good thing will always result in the best outcome" is simply not true. 

[Massadonious1]

A perceived problem, maybe. Not an actual one.

Of course we know killing Elnora is the right decision, if anyone bothered listening to that Volus. However, someone could of easily done Thane's mission right before this one. It would suprise you to know that if you don't shove that one guy out the window, he eventually gives you some info through a paragon/renegade speech check. A reasonable player could of held back on triggering the specific Renegade interrupt with Elnora to see if she had any useful intel.

I fail to see why that kind of logical thinking should be punished.

And not performing a specific type of interrupt doesn't automatically mean you are doing or endorsing the opposite. It simply means you're not taking a drastic action either way.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 16 juin 2011 - 10:27 .

[neubourn]

lol i think the preponderance of threads on the subject is because Renegade players have finally faced the fact that the Trilogy is ending and they are about to see the consequences of their choices from the previous two games.

But, nothing needs to be changed...Paragon or Renegade, both will somehow save the Galaxy.

[Ieldra]

Massadonious1 wrote...
A perceived problem, maybe. Not an actual one.

Of course we know killing Elnora is the right decision, if anyone bothered listening to that Volus. However, someone could of easily done Thane's mission right before this one. It would suprise you to know that if you don't shove that one guy out the window, he eventually gives you some info through a paragon/renegade speech check. A reasonable player could of held back on triggering the specific Renegade interrupt with Elnora to see if she had any useful intel.

I fail to see why that kind of logical thinking should be punished.

And not performing a specific type of interrupt doesn't automatically mean you are doing or endorsing the opposite. It simply means you're not taking a drastic action either way.

I was not talking about interrupts and not about minor decisions like with Elnora (BTW I rarely push the merc out of the window). I was talking about the big, main plot-affecting decisions. The good thing about that is that we don't know all the consequences yet. It might just be that sparing the Rachni queen has serious drawbacks, that keeping the Collector base will in the end yield significant benefits for the war against the Reapers, or that not having saved the Council will have some as-yet-unseed benefit.

But as of now, it doesn't look like it. It doesn't look like the fact we have Rachni husks to contend against will have a storyline impact big enough to counter the friendship of the queen, or that keeping the Collector base will have enough benefit to counter the fact that it strengthens Cerberus who is our enemy. Remember, the decisions are only balanced if every side, Paragon and Renegade, occasionally gets *better* overall results than the other. That means that Paragon decisions must sometimes have a less than optimal outcome. It doesn't look like such a thing will materialize. And until it does, I will keep the complaining up.

BTW, I don't usually play full Renegades. Most of my Shepards are Paragade or neutral. So this isn't a "typical Renegade complaint". But exactly for that reason, it is important to me that those Renegade decisions I take sometimes have a pragmatic benefit over their Paragon alternatives. Anything else is just not acceptable for a world where any kind of believable story is told. "Doing the right thing always yields the best results", that's fairy-tale reasoning.

[Markinator_123]

Ieldra2 wrote...


I was not talking about interrupts and not about minor decisions like with Elnora (BTW I rarely push the merc out of the window). I was talking about the big, main plot-affecting decisions. The good thing about that is that we don't know all the consequences yet. It might just be that sparing the Rachni queen has serious drawbacks, that keeping the Collector base will in the end yield significant benefits for the war against the Reapers, or that not having saved the Council will have some as-yet-unseed benefit.

But as of now, it doesn't look like it. It doesn't look like the fact we have Rachni husks to contend against will have a storyline impact big enough to counter the friendship of the queen, or that keeping the Collector base will have enough benefit to counter the fact that it strengthens Cerberus who is our enemy. Remember, the decisions are only balanced if every side, Paragon and Renegade, occasionally gets *better* overall results than the other. That means that Paragon decisions must sometimes have a less than optimal outcome. It doesn't look like such a thing will materialize. And until it does, I will keep the complaining up.

BTW, I don't usually play full Renegades. Most of my Shepards are Paragade or neutral. So this isn't a "typical Renegade complaint". But exactly for that reason, it is important to me that those Renegade decisions I take sometimes have a pragmatic benefit over their Paragon alternatives. Anything else is just not acceptable for a world where any kind of believable story is told. "Doing the right thing always yields the best results", that's fairy-tale reasoning.

To add to this Paragons should not have their cake and eat it too. People have a right to complain about the paragon choices always turning out to be the right ones. I can't take the world seriously if the paragon choices always lead to the best results because at times it avoids doing what needs to be done. "Paragon" and "Renegade" were never synonymous with "good" and "evil" but a different way of doing things. Just because an individual  does the "renegade" actions does not mean that he/she is trying to make the world a more depressing place, they are just trying to save more lives by not completely focusing on the moral right. Therefore, people should be complaining because the complaints are valid.

[Whyp_2]

This idea doesn'r sound that bad. I think I'll approve.

[Dannyboy9876]

Renegades get punished? First I heard of it, and I play renegade nearly all the time.

[Kadzin]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

ME3 Paragon/Renegade choices:

Paragon- "If I do some menial task for you will you join me to stop the Reapers?"

Renegade- "Help me stop the Reapers and I won't break your legs."

I think it will be more like this.

Faction Leader: What do you want Shepard?

Paragon Shepard: Please help me fight the Reapers.

Neutral Shepard: Help me fight the Reapers.

Renegade Shepard: Help me fight the Reapers, or else.

[Massadonious1]

We have no idea what the ultimate repercussions are for a lot of the decisions in the series, so we have no idea whether they will be "right" or not, and for the others we can at least see a little of the impact, could you honestly not see what was going to happen?

Say you killed the council, whether to gain a tactical advantage, or even if it was just to be spiteful. Regardless, were you honestly surprised that A) Aliens hate you or the Human council didn't want to see you because they pictured you as a monster for killing 10,000 people?

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who partake in such decisions out of their own volition, then moan that the end result is a perfectly valid reaction to that particular action. You think Turians give a crap about how many human lives you saved? For ME3, you think the Krogans are going to be greatful that you destroyed a potential Genophage cure?

You want to be mission first, then be mission first. We're all going to win in the end, but don't complain when you end up rubbing some people the wrong way along the way.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 16 juin 2011 - 01:42 .

[Warkupo]

The benefit of being a Renegade happens almost instantly; Annoying characters are dead and not bothering me in the next installment of the game.

I do not understand Renegades who pick the "Be a ****" option and then don't like that it has negative repercussions on the world.

[Smeelia]

Markinator_123 wrote...

To add to this Paragons should not have their cake and eat it too. People have a right to complain about the paragon choices always turning out to be the right ones. I can't take the world seriously if the paragon choices always lead to the best results because at times it avoids doing what needs to be done. "Paragon" and "Renegade" were never synonymous with "good" and "evil" but a different way of doing things. Just because an individual  does the "renegade" actions does not mean that he/she is trying to make the world a more depressing place, they are just trying to save more lives by not completely focusing on the moral right. Therefore, people should be complaining because the complaints are valid.

I can't remember a Renegade choice I made turning out to be "wrong" so far.  Sometimes people don't like the details, sometimes people end up dead and sometimes people hate Shepard for what happened but I don't think any of that makes the decision "wrong".  Renegades get the job done just as much as Paragons do (maybe more so sometimes).

If you really care what people think or believe that morally preferable outcomes are more important then you should be selecting the Paragon option and taking the chance that things will work out that way rather than going with the (usually more reliable) Renegade options.

Ieldra2 wrote...

BTW, I don't usually play full Renegades. Most of my Shepards are Paragade or neutral. So this isn't a "typical Renegade complaint". But exactly for that reason, it is important to me that those Renegade decisions I take sometimes have a pragmatic benefit over their Paragon alternatives. Anything else is just not acceptable for a world where any kind of believable story is told. "Doing the right thing always yields the best results", that's fairy-tale reasoning.

The problem is that you're relying on outcomes to justify decisions after you've taken them (which is basically metagaming), you're seeing a problem where there isn't one.  I pick Renegade decisions for characters because that's what they'd do in that situation.  If my Renegade Shepard shoots a criminal then I know they're not going to be a problem to anyone in the future, there's no possible way that they could be "redeemed" because they're dead.  If my Paragon Shepard lets a criminal go then what they do afterwards doesn't affect that decision (whether it's commit more crimes or try to be a better person), they're choosing to give them the chance to make the "right" choice.

Just because most of the Paragon choices "work out for the best" doesn't make it unrealistic.  Positive outcomes are still a possibility (or else it wouldn't be a choice) and even if they're less likely to happen it isn't unrealistic to have them occur.  Sometimes real life is just as "unrealistic".

[Whatever42]

Inprea wrote...
I'm curious how true that'll be really. It might be interesting to see how Bioware handles you not having the Rachnia to back you up and your struggle to get the Krogan behind you without a unifying leader like Rex. That and well as I recall if you hand legion over to Cerberus who are now working for the reapers it means all Geth were brain washed to want you dead.

I'm curious too but its not like Bioware has ever stiffed the darkside before because they were too mean. The outcome will be just as certain with renegade, I am 100% positive. It will certainly be darker but renegade is darker. Paragon will end up with a happy/fluffy ending where all the species gather in a giant group hug and end the game with a silly joke and a laugh. Renegade will end up with a darker ending, where humanity is standing alone but powerful among a fractured galactic community. The Reapers will be dead either way, though.