48 réponses à ce sujet

[Alamar2078]

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.

The above statements [IMHO] have assumptions in them which may or may not prove to be true.  The biggest assumption might be that Renegade and Paragon choices are supposed to be balanced.   What if B/W is trying to make a series with the point that we need to work together to achieve the "best" outcome [mostly the Paragon route]?  In the dev's POV perhaps Renegade choices are short sighted and in the long run will cause more harm than good.

Another assumption is that the original definitions of Renegade [Pragmatic] and Paragon [Moralist] are still in place.  It seems that recently the Renegade is more of a "jerk" / pessimist while the Paragon is a boy scout / optimist.  I'm not sure if we can tell if B/W is going to revert to the original definitions or stay with the Jerk / Boy Scout model.


Devil's Advocate:  I wish we had a more ME1-style set of conversation skills like Charm & Intimidate.  This way we could be a Paragade / Renegon without feeling like the game is "forcing" us to go to one extreme or the other.  IMHO this would yield a better conversation system.   On top of this you could still have squadmate / faction / whatever approval points in the background to reflect that certain decisions will not be looked at the same way by everyone.  This could also effect skill checks & whatever ....

Modifié par Alamar2078, 16 juin 2011 - 01:26 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Alamar2078 - I do agree that skill points to purchase social skills needs to return. This way, you could be a Charming Renegade - or an Intimidating Paragon.

And while I'm aware of how absolutely horrible it must be for some people to take away from their pew pew to put it into a roleplaying skill... I suppose giving "Social Points" to put into either Charm or Intimidate would fix that.

As for Renegades - they're "cake and eat it too" types (some of them). They want to kill people and still have NPCs to talk to.

[Shaun2406]

Massadonious1 wrote...

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. But don't complain when that ends up rubbing some people the wrong way.

There IS a big difference between kiling 10,000 people and letting 10,000 people die... by your logic paragons 'killed' the crew of those 8 human cruisers when the ordered they human fleet to commit early, just as surely as renegades killed the 10,000 crew members of the destiny ascension.

And I actually kind of liked how that decision played out, I made it from a role playing perspective (my Shepard didn't know he would win, and decided the reward of saving the council wasn't worth the risk of everyone dying if the remnants of the fleet weren't enough to kill Sovereign) but the human politicians took advantage of it and made it seem like humans planned the whole thing as a coup... It was cool, an unexpected consequence of a decision I made for completely different reasons. I don't think it makes me a monster though, nor do I think the alliance/human council considers me a monster.

What I WOULD like though was the opportunity to tell more people 'I did it cause I didn't want the galaxy to be wiped out' in ME3, rather than have the game assume I made the decision because I'm Pro-Human!

Modifié par Shaun2406, 16 juin 2011 - 01:45 .

[Smeelia]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Devil's Advocate:  I wish we had a more ME1-style set of conversation skills like Charm & Intimidate.  This way we could be a Paragade / Renegon without feeling like the game is "forcing" us to go to one extreme or the other.  IMHO this would yield a better conversation system.   On top of this you could still have squadmate / faction / whatever approval points in the background to reflect that certain decisions will not be looked at the same way by everyone.  This could also effect skill checks & whatever ....

I was recently doing a playthrough of ME1 where I took both Charm and Intimidate, having both options available adds a lot to the game and makes for a more interesting character.  I'm happy enough to give up combat capability for that added depth (though I don't think it should really be necessary, especially since different people have different skill levels).  I think the Charm and Intimidate options are often the best dialogue in the games and it's a shame that people can end up restricted to only using one (or having neither available).  They usually have much the same outcome too, so it's not like one side or the other is favoured in that respect.

Shaun2406 wrote...
What I WOULD like though was the opportunity to tell more people 'I did it cause I didn't want the galaxy to be wiped out' in ME3, rather than have the game assume I made the decision because I'm Pro-Human!

I agree with this, having motivations forced on you can be really annoying (especially if it then prevents a later decision) and is often easily avoided (they could at least have someone ask, even if it doesn't affect anything).

Modifié par Smeelia, 16 juin 2011 - 01:53 .

[Markinator_123]

Alamar2078 wrote...


The above statements [IMHO] have assumptions in them which may or may not prove to be true.  The biggest assumption might be that Renegade and Paragon choices are supposed to be balanced.   What if B/W is trying to make a series with the point that we need to work together to achieve the "best" outcome [mostly the Paragon route]?  In the dev's POV perhaps Renegade choices are short sighted and in the long run will cause more harm than good.

The paths should be balanced otherwise there is really no point in playing renegade is there? I really do not think that Bioware was intending to create a black/white world when they created Mass Effect but a world that was more "adult centered" and had shades of gray everywhere just like Dragon Age. If all the paragon choices turned out to be the more right choice from both a short-term perspective and a long-term perspective, then the Mass Effect series would be a poor choice for looking for moral ambiguity in video games. Not only that, but I would lose all respect I had for the Mass Effect series because it would claim that childish idealism and blind optimism will save the day when that is not how the real world works.

[xiiz]

Yeah.. The way I see it, Renegades should (overall) be getting more immediate/monetary rewards, whereas Paragons should be getting better long-term rewards in terms of relationships and whatnot (again, overall). That would be more in the spirit of "getting things done" - Renegade, and "doing the right thing" - Paragon. At least that's how I perceive it.

Also agree that I prefer a system closer to ME1 where if you've spent the points on it, you can effectively choose what you want, instead of being forced (more-or-less) to choose 1 path throughout the game as in ME2.

Also, as mentioned, it's annoying that a lot of the motivations are forced.. "No I did it because...." would help a lot..

[Clonedzero]

well what about a choice that dynamically turns bad with each choice. if you're paragon then being nice is the wrong move, if you're renegade then being a jerk is the wrong move. so no matter what you're wrong

[Ieldra]

xiiz wrote...
Yeah.. The way I see it, Renegades should (overall) be getting more immediate/monetary rewards, whereas Paragons should be getting better long-term rewards in terms of relationships and whatnot (again, overall). That would be more in the spirit of "getting things done" - Renegade, and "doing the right thing" - Paragon. At least that's how I perceive it.

Not at all. It's storyline benefits I'm concerned about. It's not about getting a few less enemies here and there. It's about the big decisions. A reasonable balance would be, for instance, that the Renegade loses less worlds in the ultimate battle because he has the technology of the Collector base to use against the Reapers, resulting in stronger surviving single-species civilizations, but it is politically fragmented because no one trusts the other. The Paragon will lose a lot more worlds but after the end galactic civilization is more unified. As a result, the after-the-Reapers scenario is dominated by expansion and exploration in the former case, often resulting in conflicts but more dynamic, and more by consolidation in the latter, resulting in more stability and peace.  

[Markinator_123]

Ieldra2 wrote...

xiiz wrote...
Yeah.. The way I see it, Renegades should (overall) be getting more immediate/monetary rewards, whereas Paragons should be getting better long-term rewards in terms of relationships and whatnot (again, overall). That would be more in the spirit of "getting things done" - Renegade, and "doing the right thing" - Paragon. At least that's how I perceive it.

Not at all. It's storyline benefits I'm concerned about. It's not about getting a few less enemies here and there. It's about the big decisions. A reasonable balance would be, for instance, that the Renegade loses less worlds in the ultimate battle because he has the technology of the Collector base to use against the Reapers, resulting in stronger surviving single-species civilizations, but it is politically fragmented because no one trusts the other. The Paragon will lose a lot more worlds but after the end galactic civilization is more unified. As a result, the after-the-Reapers scenario is dominated by expansion and exploration in the former case, often resulting in conflicts but more dynamic, and more by consolidation in the latter, resulting in more stability and peace.  

You know what Ieldra2 you should be writing the consequences for the game because those are very well meanginful consequences because they are thought provoking and shows that both sides have their "ups" and "downs."

[Smeelia]

Clonedzero wrote...

well what about a choice that dynamically turns bad with each choice. if you're paragon then being nice is the wrong move, if you're renegade then being a jerk is the wrong move. so no matter what you're wrong

That's sort of the system we have already, except that whatever you choose it's always "right" (it usually deals with the immediate problem at least).

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not at all. It's storyline benefits I'm concerned about. It's not about getting a few less enemies here and there. It's about the big decisions. A reasonable balance would be, for instance, that the Renegade loses less worlds in the ultimate battle because he has the technology of the Collector base to use against the Reapers, resulting in stronger surviving single-species civilizations, but it is politically fragmented because no one trusts the other. The Paragon will lose a lot more worlds but after the end galactic civilization is more unified. As a result, the after-the-Reapers scenario is dominated by expansion and exploration in the former case, often resulting in conflicts but more dynamic, and more by consolidation in the latter, resulting in more stability and peace.

That could work but I don't really see how it's that different to what we have now.  If you save the council then humanity is welcomed into the galactic community as an equal, if you let the council die then humanity is stronger and in a better position in the galactic community but the other races are less happy about the situation.  Every decision is pretty much like that, either way you "win" but the details are a little different (sometimes).

Modifié par Smeelia, 16 juin 2011 - 03:06 .

[RPGamer13]

The way that articles I've read made it sound like giving the Collector Base to Cerberus will make them stronger and/or more numerous.

Whatever the implications of going pure Renegade are, I am not going to change how I play Mass Effect 2 because of some minor setbacks.

[Whatever42]

Just a quick note regarding the Collector base:

1) We don't know if all of Cerberus has been co-opted
2) We don't know if Cerberus retains control over the base

[Inprea]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

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.

How to explain it? That's easy. You showed someone with a gun a little mercy and let them walk out a door behind you. Given that they now have an escape rout and are by no means your ally a shot in the back wouldn't be surprising at all. To them you've just shown a weakness and they intend to exploit it. The fact that you've just been shot and need time to heal up results in the reduction of health.

On another note I actually played pure Paragon so this isn't a Renegade calling for Paragons to be punished.

I believe it'd add a level of realism to the game if it was shown that some people will take advantage of your kindness or mercy and you will indeed have to pay for it. Hopefully others won't have to pay for it with you. That and well I tend to enjoy these types of challenge to your alignment. It's easy to be nice whenever everyone responds favorably to it. Can you keep that up though after it's been used against you?

[Smeelia]

Inprea wrote...

How to explain it? That's easy. You showed someone with a gun a little mercy and let them walk out a door behind you. Given that they now have an escape rout and are by no means your ally a shot in the back wouldn't be surprising at all. To them you've just shown a weakness and they intend to exploit it. The fact that you've just been shot and need time to heal up results in the reduction of health.

You'd have to be careful to avoid making Shepard look stupid (or weak) though, most cutscene shots fired at Shepard are blocked by shields (or whatever) so it'd have to be a significantly effective attack and Shepard would need to be unprepared (it'd be stupid to let the former enemy walk out without keeping an eye on them).  I'm not saying that's impossible but it could so easily go wrong.

Inprea wrote...

I believe it'd add a level of realism to the game if it was shown that some people will take advantage of your kindness or mercy and you will indeed have to pay for it. Hopefully others won't have to pay for it with you. That and well I tend to enjoy these types of challenge to your alignment. It's easy to be nice whenever everyone responds favorably to it. Can you keep that up though after it's been used against you?

Interestingly, we sort of have that for Renegades.  Can you stay Renegade knowing that Paragon choices will still work (and people will even like you better)? Apparently a lot of people don't like that though, so perhaps adding it for Paragons wouldn't be the best move.

[Repearized Miranda]

azerSheppard wrote...

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...

You don't have to be 100% either or. If that were the case, then why not just tell everybody to be Paragon or Renegade. As I've said before, folks try so hard to do that to see what ending they will get; however, thhat's also a misnomer because a straight Paragon won't always nor should they get the happy ending (everybody lives). Nor should Renegades get - everybody dies as it's been said that both groups have to dedicate themselves to get both endings.

Both my characters (ME1 & 2) are 1:4, but I've gotten the good endings for both; I could very well get thenot-so-desirable ending the other way. (Not very likely, but not impossible)

it's the player's mentality and that's not necessarily BW's fault because most are capable of discerning that the blue choices are noble while the red choice aren't so noble; however, they have egregiously confused that with "good and bad."

Ex: Getting answers. are you or aren't you "shoot first, ask questions later" character type? No matter how you go about it, hopefully, you will get answers. 

I don't think they should "fix" the morale system because as I said, it's the players who take it out of context.

[Homey C-Dawg]

I don't want to see Bioware gimp Paragons at all, but I would like them to add some renegade specific stuff too like the paragons get. Both paths should have some exclusive content beyond the "big choices".

Example: I'd like to see a renegade exclusive situation where some allies/friends of someone you rene-killed come back for revenge.

My 2¢

[Alamar2078]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...


The above statements [IMHO] have assumptions in them which may or may not prove to be true.  The biggest assumption might be that Renegade and Paragon choices are supposed to be balanced.   What if B/W is trying to make a series with the point that we need to work together to achieve the "best" outcome [mostly the Paragon route]?  In the dev's POV perhaps Renegade choices are short sighted and in the long run will cause more harm than good.

The paths should be balanced otherwise there is really no point in playing renegade is there? I really do not think that Bioware was intending to create a black/white world when they created Mass Effect but a world that was more "adult centered" and had shades of gray everywhere just like Dragon Age. If all the paragon choices turned out to be the more right choice from both a short-term perspective and a long-term perspective, then the Mass Effect series would be a poor choice for looking for moral ambiguity in video games. Not only that, but I would lose all respect I had for the Mass Effect series because it would claim that childish idealism and blind optimism will save the day when that is not how the real world works.

To clarify I would prefer Renegade to be "pragmatist" and Paragon to be "optimist / moralist".   Seeing what was done in ME2 makes me wonder though ....

I will agree with you that there should be some decisions where the Renegade gets the best end of the deal both in the short and the long term.

On the other hand I don't think there needs to be a 50-50 split as forcing this sort of split seems unrealistic.

Note:  This is supposed to be a role-playing game so we shouldn't always make choices that are "best".  We should play our characters and just see how their choices [good or bad] impact the universe.

[Alamar2078]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

I don't want to see Bioware gimp Paragons at all, but I would like them to add some renegade specific stuff too like the paragons get. Both paths should have some exclusive content beyond the "big choices".

Example: I'd like to see a renegade exclusive situation where some allies/friends of someone you rene-killed come back for revenge.

My 2¢

IIRC they already tried some of that with ME2 but due to a bug everyone got it.  If you were a Paragon to Conrad in ME1 he wasn't supposed to show up in ME2 for you and only renegades would get that.  IIRC the flags got messed up so pretty much everyone got Conrad anyway.

I don't mind giving both sides something like this though.  I find it reasonable enough ...

[Smeelia]

Alamar2078 wrote...

IIRC they already tried some of that with ME2 but due to a bug everyone got it.  If you were a Paragon to Conrad in ME1 he wasn't supposed to show up in ME2 for you and only renegades would get that.  IIRC the flags got messed up so pretty much everyone got Conrad anyway.

I don't mind giving both sides something like this though.  I find it reasonable enough ...

There was going to be a Paragon version of the Conrad encounter (I think it was going to be much the same quest with different dialogue really) but a bug in the ME1 saves meant that you'd always get Renegade anyway (I think that's also the reason they haven't fixed it, since it can't be done in ME2).

[Eurhetemec]

The way Paragon/Renegade is done in the ME2, I hope both are useful, just providing different benefits and problems.

What I didn't like was in ME1, where Renegade was all too often just the crummier way of resolving a situation. In ME2, that was much less the case, and hopefully for ME3 they can do an even better job. Different but roughly equal is all we wanted, and no-one should miss out on anything genuinely important, like permanent gear, XP, or ability points, just because they chose one or the other.

[Alamar2078]

Smeelia wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

IIRC they already tried some of that with ME2 but due to a bug everyone got it.  If you were a Paragon to Conrad in ME1 he wasn't supposed to show up in ME2 for you and only renegades would get that.  IIRC the flags got messed up so pretty much everyone got Conrad anyway.

I don't mind giving both sides something like this though.  I find it reasonable enough ...

There was going to be a Paragon version of the Conrad encounter (I think it was going to be much the same quest with different dialogue really) but a bug in the ME1 saves meant that you'd always get Renegade anyway (I think that's also the reason they haven't fixed it, since it can't be done in ME2).

Hmm .. It was my understanding that the Paragon Conrad experience would just be a random news announcement instead of actually meeting him.  I thought someone did testing and set the flags properly and Conrad never showed up.

Honestly I'm not 100% sure without running the flag test myself ...

[STG]

Alamar2078 wrote...
Hmm .. It was my understanding that the Paragon Conrad experience would just be a random news announcement instead of actually meeting him.  I thought someone did testing and set the flags properly and Conrad never showed up.

Honestly I'm not 100% sure without running the flag test myself ...

Paragon Conrad:
www.youtube.com/watch

[Alamar2078]

I obviously stand corrected ... 

I wouldn't have minded it though if Conrad had only been Renegade though ....

Modifié par Alamar2078, 17 juin 2011 - 09:08 .

[Smeelia]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I obviously stand corrected ... 

I wouldn't have minded it though if Conrad had only been Renegade though ....

Conrad is one of my favourite characters, I think he should be in the game for everyone (even those that didn't import) because he's hilarious.  I hope he makes it to ME3.