347 réponses à ce sujet

[Smeelia]

Blitzkrieg0811 wrote...

You cited 4 incidents. I'm pretty sure almost every renegade dialogue option had better writting. And how about:
-pushing a merc through a window
-setting fire to a krogan
-shooting a crate causing it to fall on mercs
-threatening to cut of Kellam's balls and sell them to a krogan
-punching Al-Jilani
-shooting a mech with Garrus' sniper

I actually prefer the non-interrupt versions of the window merc and the Al-Jilani interview (for both Paragons and Renegades).

A couple of my favourite Paragon moments:
The Paragon interrupt when the Volus is falsely accusing the Quarian of stealing his credit chit is pretty cool.  Then there's the moment where you can say to the Quarian tribunal on Tali's loyalty mission "with all due respect, I didn't defend one of your people, I defended one of mine" (I'm not sure it's worth points but it's on the upper right of the wheel).

You can't really "prove" one is better than the other since it's subjective anyway.  Just because the Paragon writing doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's bad or that it doesn't appeal to anyone.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Seboist wrote...

Millions of Krogans died to stop the Rachni and you're telling me they'd brush it off as no biggie? Seriously?

The Krogan are going to have to fight along side the Turians and Salarians who have done much more damage to the Krogan than the Rachni ever did, if we can get them to work with the Council than getting them to work with the Rachni wouldn't be much harder.

As I've said many times the Krogan enjoy battle and would probably see the Rachni as a worth enemy that was able to endure the Krogan assault and come back. They'd probably look at the Rachni as brave facing the Krogan head to head while the Salarians faced them with the Genophage.

[Asari Commando]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

I'm a Paragon player and I dn't care if sparing lives gives me a bonus in the next game or not. Sure it would be cool to have the Rachni help me out and other things like that but if they don't that's ok. I made the decisions I made because they were morally correct to me and that's it.

exactly, the way RPG is supposed to be played

but like others said, being renegade is a reward in itself, it would be silly to offer incentive for those choices. and im sorry but i really dont see how choosing the paragon path will give you the "win button" while going thru dialogue. i can think of plenty of times where a paragon responce was NOT the right answer. for example on thanes loyalty mission, even with a full scored paragon you cannot end that interogation easily. it will take a lot of persuading and time, whereas a renegade can scare the crap out of him, and end the interview in seconds.

not to mention you have no idea how previous choices will affect the game yet. for all we know, balak will rise up and batarian rebellions will overflow as the reapers come. then all of the sudden the rachni invade and turn the war into an all out brawl. as if thing couldnt get worse for the paragon, shep walks in on ashley being un-faithful with udina. AAAHHHHH!!!

good enough for you??

[Bailyn242]

Seboist wrote...

Here's my list of replacement cameos and references that should have been added.

1. Sacrificed the council? You get to see the human led council and get congragulated by Alliance brass (Hackett and/or Mikhailovich) for making humans stronger on the Galactic scene.

2. Killed the Rachni Queen? You get to see an ex-Peak 15 worker (Captain Vetralis, Han Olar or Dr. Zev Cohen) and/or Wrex/Wreav or some random Krogan congragulating Shepard for honoring the sacrifice of their ancestors.

3. Killed criminals like Helena Blake and Fist? You get a news report or a mention by Bailey that their deaths reduced crime.

4. Killed Shiala? Lizbeth/Juliana Baynham replace her.

5. Killed Rana Thanoptis? Some new assistant researcher replaces her.

6. Gianna dies?  Lorik Quin or Maeko Mutsuo replace her.

^ any of these would be better than the current suitation where we get absolutely nothing (Fist/Helena Blake) or any indicator that our past decision has any long term impact (Killing Rachni Queen).

1. I like the Mikhalovich idea although it would weaken the idea that the Alliance brass wants nothing to do with you now that you're working with Cerberus.

2. Honoring their dead / sacrifices could very well work and fit with the Renegade tone to interactins with the rough and tumble Krogans.

3. I don't know about this one, it seems too blatant a reward. Better idea would be a news report on Omega that the Syndicate's ongoing internal struggled has resulted in declining market share in the Terminus systems as new players fight to take over in the resulting power vacuum. Mor of a Renegade flavor than the pat on the back would be. "Good, they can keep killing themselves off so I don't have to deal with it."

4. Works for me although I'd like them to be nervous about approaching Shepard. After all he did shot Jong in the head right in front of them... renegade Shep should have them wetting their pants even though he'd help anyway.

5. No, no, a thousand times no. Don't remove the consequences. Another way to do this without this path would be a datapad with note or voicelog of Okeer about how he misses her gift at this kind of research. It would outline essentially what Rana told you but more of a renegade tone. 

6. Matsuko or Quin would work, Matsuko more than Quin could really setup well as a renegade thing. You could even have her take a confrontational stance, "You let a friend of mine die you psychopath."

Good ideas though, and far more productive.

As for the frakking ida that the Rachni story is even close to resolution is delusional at best. Harping on this one drives me up a tree, most petulant of the renegade complaints.

[Inverness Moon]

Smeelia wrote...

Sarcastic Tasha wrote...
I agree that being renegade is its own reward. Playing paragon is painful at times, paragon Shep is just so naive, she thinks everything will work out so long as you have good intentions (sadly she's often right in the ME universe).

You have an odd definition of "sadly".

That's describing a bad portrayal of reality.

[Dane Seagal]

I opt for punishing paragons AND the idea the OP has. Not because I dislike paragons, but so that each side gets as much punishment. Basically a Reward/Punishment system.

Neither side is right; the option isn't of good and evil (although some options definitely lean towards jerkness) but more of idealism and cynicism. I think it would be a good lesson for Bioware to show that 100% idealism doesn't guarantee results in all cases, neither does 100% cynicism. They should have characters that respond better to paragon options and some to renegade options. Some situations should blow up because your intimidations were too insulting, whereas other situations should blow up because being charming, reasonable and 'polite' doesn't work on all villains.

On choices already made in 1 and 2 they could for example make the Rachni turn on people after the war, but rewritten Geth are shown to be able to make peace with the Quarians after all. Smaller choices could also have negative repercussions (as was already shown with the asari merc in Samara's mission). Keeping Sidonis alive might have him do something horrible.

In any case, regardless of allignment, mixed or maxed, there should be negative consequences for choices made. Unless a first-time non-cheating player is so clever he can figure out the best result for everything. We could also have topics discussing the options for getting arguably the 'best' result.

Modifié par Dane Seagal, 17 juin 2011 - 03:47 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yeah I just don't want a situation where the best outcomes come from the same one-button when it's supposed ot be a "hard choice"

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 17 juin 2011 - 03:49 .

[Ultai]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I think it is important to remember that the player can be rewarded even while a decision apparently bites Shepard in the rear. Extra content that you can only access by importing a save file from the previous game is a reward regardless of what actually takes place. So a decision turning out badly, causing a new side mission for Shepard to pursue, would make Shepard regret his/her choice but give the player more game to play.

*takes this post and slams it down on Casey Hudson's desk*  This, no more zero content incidents.

[Smeelia]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

Sarcastic Tasha wrote...
I agree that being renegade is its own reward. Playing paragon is painful at times, paragon Shep is just so naive, she thinks everything will work out so long as you have good intentions (sadly she's often right in the ME universe).

You have an odd definition of "sadly".

That's describing a bad portrayal of reality.

Consistently getting a positive outcome may not seem likely but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  I'm surprised at how many people fail to realise that.

Besides, the ME universe doesn't necessarily have cultural tendencies like the ones you are basing your assessment on so the probability may be higher than you expect.  The alien races in particular may be harder to predict because they have significantly different cultures.

Saphra Deden wrote...

I think it is important to remember that the player can be rewarded even while a decision apparently bites Shepard in the rear. Extra content that you can only access by importing a save file from the previous game is a reward regardless of what actually takes place. So a decision turning out badly, causing a new side mission for Shepard to pursue, would make Shepard regret his/her choice but give the player more game to play.

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

[marshalleck]

Smeelia wrote...

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

Yeah, not being able to meet with the new Council is just a minor thing. No big deal, I can't see why anyone would care about that, despite Paragons being able to have a meeting with the old Council. Perfectly equitable situtation there.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Bailyn242 wrote...

[quote]Seboist wrote...

Here's my list of replacement cameos and references that should have been added.

1. Sacrificed the council? You get to see the human led council and get congragulated by Alliance brass (Hackett and/or Mikhailovich) for making humans stronger on the Galactic scene.

2. Killed the Rachni Queen? You get to see an ex-Peak 15 worker (Captain Vetralis, Han Olar or Dr. Zev Cohen) and/or Wrex/Wreav or some random Krogan congragulating Shepard for honoring the sacrifice of their ancestors.

3. Killed criminals like Helena Blake and Fist? You get a news report or a mention by Bailey that their deaths reduced crime.

4. Killed Shiala? Lizbeth/Juliana Baynham replace her.

5. Killed Rana Thanoptis? Some new assistant researcher replaces her.

6. Gianna dies?  Lorik Quin or Maeko Mutsuo replace her.

^ any of these would be better than the current suitation where we get absolutely nothing (Fist/Helena Blake) or any indicator that our past decision has any long term impact (Killing Rachni Queen).
[/quote]

1. I like the Mikhalovich idea although it would weaken the idea that the Alliance brass wants nothing to do with you now that you're working with Cerberus.[/quote]Already undermermined by Hacket. And Udina forwarding emails. And Anderson. And, well-

One Admiral in particular thanking Shepard wouldn't be untoward, though personally I'd have had Paragons get a scolding from some Alliance military element (because of you, we can't defend Human colonies!).



[quote]
3. I don't know about this one, it seems too blatant a reward. Better idea would be a news report on Omega that the Syndicate's ongoing internal struggled has resulted in declining market share in the Terminus systems as new players fight to take over in the resulting power vacuum. Mor of a Renegade flavor than the pat on the back would be. "Good, they can keep killing themselves off so I don't have to deal with it."[/quote]Since there's already a 'nice' Renegade outcome that doesn't involve killing Helen (just letting her go), that's a good one for 'she died trying to resist arrest.'

[quote]
4. Works for me although I'd like them to be nervous about approaching Shepard. After all he did shot Jong in the head right in front of them... renegade Shep should have them wetting their pants even though he'd help anyway.
[/quote]The Jong decision is neither Paragon or Renegade: it's persuasion/no persuasion, like with Wrex. If you don't have the points, Jong dies regardless. If you do have the points, Paragon or Renegade is irrelevant.

I don't like them being afraid because you could make the exact same case about every other cameo: Shiala saw a number of her clones massacred by you, for example. And Giana only got her evidence after Shepard massacred a security team. Only in this case, Shepard's actions were in support of Elizabeth from the start, never antagonistic.

[quote]
5. No, no, a thousand times no. Don't remove the consequences. Another way to do this without this path would be a datapad with note or voicelog of Okeer about how he misses her gift at this kind of research. It would outline essentially what Rana told you but more of a renegade tone. [/quote]The consequence is Rana herself. It should never be the loss of unrelated story narration that ties to character development of another, story-relevant character.[/quote]
[quote]
6. Matsuko or Quin would work, Matsuko more than Quin could really setup well as a renegade thing. You could even have her take a confrontational stance, "You let a friend of mine die you psychopath."[/quote]Matsuko didn't care in ME1, though. Moreover, Quin is a much more immediate connection to the incident being reflected, IE the garage pass delimma.
[quote]As for the frakking ida that the Rachni story is even close to resolution is delusional at best. Harping on this one drives me up a tree, most petulant of the renegade complaints.
[/quote]...yes, because blatant foreshadowing and dramatic cues are so petulant when pointed at.

[Dean_the_Young]

marshalleck wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

Yeah, not being able to meet with the new Council is just a minor thing. No big deal, I can't see why anyone would care about that, despite Paragons being able to have a meeting with the old Council. Perfectly equitable situtation there.

And hey, remember that discussion with Rana Thanopolis about Okeer and his project, on that character-developing recruitment mission?

No? Guess you killed her.


Hey, how about Noveria? Both of them? In the space of 50 steps from eachother. Unless you did Renegade, in which case there's no one at all.

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

Yeah, not being able to meet with the new Council is just a minor thing. No big deal, I can't see why anyone would care about that, despite Paragons being able to have a meeting with the old Council. Perfectly equitable situtation there.

The human led council is such a non-entity that if they removed the two brief mentions of them nothing would change in the story; likewise the Rachni Queen plot becomes largely irrelevant with just one brief mention that the "cloning attempts" at Peak 15  failed and......... that's it. These and other Renegade subplots almost seem like they never happened at all.

I'm half expecting the human led council to not to show up again in ME3 and that the only difference between the two Rachni Queen paths is one line where Renegade Shepard says "What the ****...... RACHNI HUSKS?! I thought I killed the Queen?!".

[Xeranx]

marshalleck wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

Yeah, not being able to meet with the new Council is just a minor thing. No big deal, I can't see why anyone would care about that, despite Paragons being able to have a meeting with the old Council. Perfectly equitable situtation there.

If I remember correctly, you can still kill the Council and end the last game as a paragon.  In ME2, so long as you select Anderson as Councilor, there'll be a new Council with the same make up as the old and you won't meet them either.  Keep in mind that there's a neutral decision in ME that allows the Council to die for pragmatic reasons.

[Ieldra]

Hmm. Apparently for many Renegade players the problem of Renegade and Paragon consequences is a matter of lost content, primarily.

For me, it's not. Less content is annoying, but I can live with it if it's a reasonable consequence. The dead are dead, I don't need a substitute to make up for lost content. No, for me it's a matter of world integrity. Consequently, it is the effect Renegade actions have in the story that concern me, not my rewards as a player.

It's like this: every time I see a Paragon decision implausibly have a better outcome than a Renegade decision, something in me says "That's weird". Then again, implausible things sometimes happen, so a single instance or two won't bother me much. But if a pattern starts to emerge, and the great majority, if not all, Paragon decisions turn out to have no (story-affecting) downside, and Renegade decisions no (story-affecting) upside, then I'm starting to think "That's not how things work!" and my suspension of disbelief starts to get unsustainable.

A universe where the intuitively right, feel-good action always results in the best outcome is a fairy-tale universe. I cannot believe in it. It's a problem much greater than being rewarded with a little more content here and there. It literally destroys the story for me.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2011 - 01:26 .

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

Millions of Krogans died to stop the Rachni and you're telling me they'd brush it off as no biggie? Seriously?

Even more Krogan died to Krogan in civil wars and how man died in the Krogan rebellions? Are the Krogan also angry at the rest of civilization for defending themselves? The Rachni war was pre-genophage so it also doubled as population control.

If the Krogan took battlefield losses as seriously as some seem to think, they would have stayed home and adapted easily to the genophage rather than abandoning the homeworld desperately looking for ways to get themselves into combat situations.

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It's like this: every time I see a Paragon decision implausibly have a better outcome than a Renegade decision, something in me says "That's weird".

Ah, another person who insists their logic is better than everyone else's. What are all these impausable results? And how about an enemy with a definate renegade style (Cerberus) bringing you back from the dead and you simply going along with them? That doesn't count as implausable?

Or the Council dismissing all evidence of the Reapers and not even considering the possibility that they do exist and even refusing to take the Collectors seriously.

[Smeelia]

marshalleck wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

This is a good point.  I'm often puzzled about why people feel "punished" for making Renegade decisions when you still get much the same amount of content (maybe it's lacking in some minor areas but it's not that bad).

Yeah, not being able to meet with the new Council is just a minor thing. No big deal, I can't see why anyone would care about that, despite Paragons being able to have a meeting with the old Council. Perfectly equitable situtation there.

Some would argue that dealing with the old council again is a punishment (turns out that they're still annoying).  Anyway, meeting the council again is a minor thing and with the old council dead you still get to meet the leader of the new council and have a chat so you don't actually lose any content (you just have a different scene).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And hey, remember that discussion with Rana Thanopolis about Okeer and his project, on that character-developing recruitment mission?

No? Guess you killed her.


Hey, how about Noveria? Both of them? In the space of 50 steps from eachother. Unless you did Renegade, in which case there's no one at all.

Rana doesn't exactly have much to say, the same goes for all the cameos really.  You're really not showing a significant loss of content, yes there's less but it's a tiny amount and it wouldn't exactly change the game if it didn't show up for Paragons either.

Seboist wrote...

The human led council is such a non-entity that if they removed the two brief mentions of them nothing would change in the story; likewise the Rachni Queen plot becomes largely irrelevant with just one brief mention that the "cloning attempts" at Peak 15  failed and......... that's it. These and other Renegade subplots almost seem like they never happened at all.

I'm half expecting the human led council to not to show up again in ME3 and that the only difference between the two Rachni Queen paths is one line where Renegade Shepard says "What the ****...... RACHNI HUSKS?! I thought I killed the Queen?!".

This is much the same for both sides though, you get a brief chat with the odd person you didn't kill (or their messenger) and nothing significant changes.  There are only two or three minor quests that relate to carried over saves and I think all of them can be done with Renegade circumstances.

So Renegade players get slightly less (as I mentioned) but it's hardly massively game changing and there's nothing to suggest it was any sort of deliberate attack on those playing Renegade.  It's like some people just want to make themselves out to be victims when there's really nothing to back it up.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm. Apparently for many Renegade players the problem of Renegade and Paragon consequences is a matter of lost content, primarily.

For me, it's not. Less content is annoying, but I can live with it if it's a reasonable consequence. The dead are dead, I don't need a substitute to make up for lost content. No, for me it's a matter of world integrity. Consequently, it is the effect Renegade actions have in the story that concern me, not my rewards as a player.

It's like this: every time I see a Paragon decision implausibly have a better outcome than a Renegade decision, something in me says "That's weird". Then again, implausible things sometimes happen, so a single instance or two won't bother me much. But if a pattern starts to emerge, and the great majority, if not all, Paragon decisions turn out to have no (story-affecting) downside, and Renegade decisions no (story-affecting) upside, then I'm starting to think "That's not how things work!" and my suspension of disbelief starts to get unsustainable.

A universe where the intuitively right, feel-good action always results in the best outcome is a fairy-tale universe. I cannot believe in it. It's a problem much greater than being rewarded with a little more content here and there. It literally destroys the story for me.

I suppose everyone has different ideas of what is plausible.  Even so, how many Paragon decisions really have implausible upsides? For that matter, how many Renegade decisions have implausible downsides (or an implausible lack of upside)?

It's quite possible to succeed and achieve positive results by taking chances on "good" actions in the real-world.  Similarly, it's quite possible to try and do the "practical" or "ruthless" thing and have it backfire badly.  Whether you believe it or not has to do with your pessimism/optimism but doesn't affect the chances or the final outcomes.

Mass Effect is a bit of a "fairy-tale" story.  Whatever Shepard does will ultimately work out (well, there's a possible exception in ME2 but it takes effort to achieve), Renegade or Paragon.  You end up with different circumstances depending on your choices but either way you'll probably win and you'll still get a whole story.  If you make Paragon choices the universe tends towards optimism and things work out, if you make Renegade choices things still work out but in a more cynical way.  In a way, you're choosing the kind of story that you want to be told along the way, the fact that there are alternative versions of the story shouldn't really be a problem.

[goofyomnivore]

I have a problem with things such as; Balak in BDtS Paragon outcome. He does nothing over the two years Shepard has been dead. Does nothing throughout ME2. What is the point of killing him if he fades into obscurity? If you let him go he essentially bested a Spectre.. I think he would be revered throughout Batarian terrorism circles, and have radical followers ready to do more acts of terror.

That choice makes me think Bioware didn't want to punish people for being the "hero" and saving three hostages. Many of Bioware's moral dilemmas don't punish the Paragon as much as the Renegade. At least as of Mass Effect 2.

I hope Bioware gets away from morality stats in future games. Paragon/Renegade is just so frustrating.

Modifié par strive, 17 juin 2011 - 03:07 .

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
A universe where the intuitively right, feel-good action always results in the best outcome is a fairy-tale universe. I cannot believe in it. It's a problem much greater than being rewarded with a little more content here and there. It literally destroys the story for me.

I suppose everyone has different ideas of what is plausible.  Even so, how many Paragon decisions really have implausible upsides? For that matter, how many Renegade decisions have implausible downsides (or an implausible lack of upside)?

Leaving the Council to die, for instance. You'd think the new human-led Council would be a little more appreciative of your actions. Instead, they not only aren't that, they don't even speak to you like the nonhuman Council does.

And it's really an implausible lack of upside that bothers me about Renegade decisions, or rather, the implausible lack of a decisive upside over and above those of the Paragon decisions even once in one of the big decisions. The universe itself appears to tell me "Paragon is the best, Renegade has no reason to be". Why put all those Renegade options in the game if they're ALWAYS the second-best? You know, I don't take the occasional Renegade decision because I like to kill more people for my victories. I make them because I think (or rather my Shepard thinks) they result in an advantage. That that's wrong *sometimes* I can live with. It's a gamble, you cannot always be right. That it's wrong *always* is just no believable. The Renegade school of doing things wouldn't exist if it were.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2011 - 04:02 .

[Moiaussi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Leaving the Council to die, for instance. You'd think the new human-led Council would be a little more appreciative of your actions. Instead, they not only aren't that, they don't even speak to you like the nonhuman Council does.

And it's really an implausible lack of upside that bothers me about Renegade decisions, or rather, the implausible lack of a decisive upside over and above those of the Paragon decisions even once in one of the big decisions. The universe itself appears to tell me "Paragon is the best, Renegade has no reason to be". Why put all those Renegade options in the game if they're ALWAYS the second-best? You know, I don't take the occasional Renegade decision because I like to kill more people for my victories. I make them because I think (or rather my Shepard thinks) they result in an advantage. That that's wrong *sometimes* I can live with. It's a gamble, you cannot always be right. That it's wrong *always* is just no believable. The Renegade school of doing things wouldn't exist if it were.

You do realize that the human portion of the human led council is more appreciative if you chose Anderson. Anderson is that portion. If you chose Udina, you should not be surprised at him not being supportive since he wasn't in ME1. The rest of the Council isn't human, it is replacement representatives for the other races. You ordered the fleet to sit back and let their predecessors die. Why would they be appreciative?

Other than that, what decisions can you say definately turned out wrong? Where are the real, tangible outcomes you are talking about?

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Leaving the Council to die, for instance. You'd think the new human-led Council would be a little more appreciative of your actions. Instead, they not only aren't that, they don't even speak to you like the nonhuman Council does.

The old council aren't exactly that friendly either.  Someone else's opinion of you shouldn't really matter anyway, a lot of decisions that have benefits aren't popular even with the people that are benefiting.  Udina's a good example, he's never happy (for that matter, the old council have a similar attitude).

Ieldra2 wrote...

And it's really an implausible lack of upside that bothers me about Renegade decisions, or rather, the implausible lack of a decisive upside over and above those of the Paragon decisions even once in one of the big decisions. The universe itself appears to tell me "Paragon is the best, Renegade has no reason to be". Why put all those Renegade options in the game if they're ALWAYS the second-best? You know, I don't take the occasional Renegade decision because I like to kill more people for my victories. I make them because I think (or rather my Shepard thinks) they result in an advantage. That that's wrong *sometimes* I can live with. It's a gamble, you cannot always be right. That it's wrong *always* is just no believable. The Renegade school of doing things wouldn't exist if it were.

You're comparing two storylines that are mutually exclusive.  If you kill the Rachni Queen you don't know if the Rachni would turn out to be allies or enemies (and they could be allies against the Reapers but enemies in the long run anyway) but you know for sure they wont be either (of course we still don't know the outcome of saving her either).

Renegade decisions often "cut off" possibilities, specifically to avoid the chance that they could go wrong and that means that you wont know if they would have gone wrong or not.  Looking at the Paragon path and saying it would have worked out doesn't really make sense, your character doesn't know that and there's no guarantee that it would have been true in a "realistic" sense.

Why do you consider Renegade choices to be "second-best" anyway? You obviously prefer them and feel that the outcomes make sense.  With Renegade choices you still always win, always advance the story and complete your missions.  I've played multiple times with different choices (including both extremes) and I don't feel either is "superior", they're just different stories with different characters.  There are different versions of "The Little Mermaid" and some have happier endings than others, does the fact that one is more positive automatically make it the "better" option?

It may not be what you want but Mass Effect isn't about choosing the "right" option to solve problems, it's about choosing who you want your character to be and how you want them to get things done.  It's a story about a hero that fights seemingly impossible odds and wins.  If that's really the main problem you have with the game then I can understand that, everyone wants different things from their games and they can't all be pleased.  Still, your comment suggests it's knowing that there's a "happier" version of the story that bothers you and I can't really understand why that would be a problem.  If you enjoy the Renegade (or mostly Renegade) version anyway, why let it bother you that there's an alternative?

Modifié par Smeelia, 17 juin 2011 - 04:41 .

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...
Why do you consider Renegade choices to be "second-best" anyway? You obviously prefer them and feel that the outcomes make sense.

That's twisted reasoning. I take Renegade decisions, so I must like their outcomes? Yes, I like the projected outcomes - only they never materialize. Or rather, the downsides that can reasonably be expected to result from some Paragon decisions, which are the main reason why I sometimes take Renegade decisions, never materialize.

And yes, if I kill the Rachni Queen and win by the same margin (i.e. with the same amount of undesirable side effects) as I would if I did not kill her, then the decision to kill her is plainly, very, very obviously the second best. Because, as I also said, I don't take Renegade options because I prefer to be an assh*le to people or because I prefer to win by killing more people instead of fewer. I take them because I believe (or rather my Shepard believes) the Paragon alternative would have a downside I can't afford.

And I make my decisions that way, I make my Shepards characters that take the occasional Renegade decision out of perceived necessity because I expect things to work out reasonably like in the real world. I believe Bioware set out to create a world with grey morality, they even said so explicitly, so I think my expectation is very reasonable. If that turns out wrong, if the ME universe is really a fairy-tale universe where doing the intuitively good always gets the best result, then I am in a different world than Bioware promised I would be. 

I want to play in the morally grey world Bioware promised and which the ME universe appears to be on the surface, and not in a fairy-tale universe where doing the right thing always turns out best. That's really the core of the complaint.

BTW:
Most of my Shepards are Paragades or Neutrals. I find full Renegades hard to stomach. But those Renegade decisions who appear to be pragmatic rather than sociopathic should sometimes turn out to actually be pragmatic.

Edit:
"Arrival" tells you that the ME universe intends to be what they promised. You really have to kill those 300k batarians for the greater good. It's a Renegade decision forced on Paragon players which I'm sure some of them aren't happy about. Only they wriggled out of it being an actual decision for the player because they didn't want to present Paragons with a "game over" screen. Now make the same logic work for one or two of the bigger decisions whose consequences materialize in ME3 and I'll have no reason to complain any more. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2011 - 05:32 .

[Moiaussi]

So the fact that you don't have the risk of a future post-reaper Rachni war isn't a benefit? Why did you kill her then?

How many Rachni Queens have you met in the real world? Or for that matter, how many even remotely similar decisions have you made in the real world or even can cite from history? On what is your 'just like in the real world' based?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 17 juin 2011 - 05:29 .