Saphra Deden wrote...
AngelicMachinery wrote...
I believe the point Saphara is attempting to make is why Shepard didn't lob a grenade at him before he pulls the trigger.
If there was ever a moment for a good Paragon interrupt that was it.
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Nightwriter wrote...
Shepard had no reason to be moved by Fai Dan's heroism before he killed himself.
Modifié par Nightwriter, 19 juin 2011 - 10:24 .
It's not long between Fai Dan turning the gun on himself and firing (well, maybe longer than it could be) so Shepard could easily not realise what he's doing until it's too late. That said, throwing a grenade (or shooting him if you're not using the grenades) would make sense anyway to bring Fai Dan down so, as you say, there's not a lot of justification for the scene overall (apart from "drama").Saphra Deden wrote...
Uh... why not? By this point he knows what has been done to the colonists. He knows they aren't in control. This right out in the open when he meets Fai Dan again. Not to mention lobbing a grenade could have been a way to difuse the situation before either of them was hurt/killed.
Modifié par Smeelia, 19 juin 2011 - 10:23 .
Well, maybe Shepard throws the grenade and then shoots it to detonate it in mid air (rather than using the remote detonation function). Or possibly throws the grenade and then shoots Fai Dan anyway. Or it could just do whichever one is first or prioritise Renegade (like the save game flags do) but that'd be less fun.Nightwriter wrote...
Simultaneous, you say? Then what happens when you pull both triggers at once and activate both interrupts? Does it unlock a super secret awesome Shepard action? Or does it just result in a rip in the time space continuum or perhaps a universe ending paradox?
Nightwriter wrote...
Simultaneous, you say? Then what happens when you pull both triggers at once and activate both interrupts? Does it unlock a super secret awesome Shepard action? Or does it just result in a rip in the time space continuum or perhaps a universe ending paradox?
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Smeelia wrote...
It's not long between Fai Dan turning the gun on himself and firing...
Well, that depends on what you consider to be foreseeable and how you link acts together. If the Heretic Geth were dead then the Geth may not have been in a position to carry out those tests but then there's not necessarily a direct link between the decision to rewrite the Geth and them proceeding with the tests either. If you weren't born then you couldn't go on a killing spree but that doesn't mean that your parents should have avoided your birth since they couldn't be sure what kind of life you'd lead.tjzsf wrote...
Trying again: rewards can be either validation (emails/verbal thanks/"good job" from party members or NPCs) or content (extra levels, like the Lord Darius/Hostage Scientists assignments from ME1). If the decision is supposed to carry consequences throughout the series, then there also needs to be a foreseeability component - any consequence has to be at least somewhat foreseeable when making the decision (rewriting the geth results in the true geth achieving consensus with the heretics' views, giving the Reapers another ally is foreseeable, the same act causing the geth to test weapons that result in the hanar/drell homeworld being blown up is not).
I'm not really convinced of this, we're mostly just talking about a few scenes and people have already come up with decent suggestions. Really, the issue is more that some decisions don't get any recognition at all and carrying over a game doesn't feel so worthwhile (the form the recognition takes isn't as important). It's worth mentioning that, while it is particularly bad for Renegades, Renegade decisions aren't the only ones that pass without recognition (some neutral decisions and non-persuasion choices are similarly disregarded).tjzsf wrote...
Problem with "rewarding" renegades to the same extent that paragons are rewarded is that because renegade playstyles tend to lead to a higher bodycount, so validation and content both tend to be lower. Some can be made up by alternate cameos, but on the whole the trend would still be lower.
I think this is a big problem and it's nothing to do with the game at all, it's purely about player perception. When making the decision you generally don't know how it'll work out so if you're picking the option that makes the most sense to your Shepard (or even you personally) then the outcome is what you get in that universe. It's not a matter that the other decision would have worked out fine because you still don't know that (even if, in metagaming terms, you do) and it's not a matter of the other decision being "better" just because it may be morally preferable to you. Whatever decision you make, you still get a story and you still get to play the game, there's even a very good chance your character will win in the end (you almost have to deliberately lose in ME2, I'd be surprised if ME3 is any different). There are no "wrong" decisions in the game, it's been made that way deliberately, whatever you pick is the "right" decision and helps to craft your story. You may not always be happy with the outcome but that is what the writers chose, there are always going to be people who just don't like a particular story and it's not going to be able to change to please them. If you really want the "nice" ending then selecting options that make it impossible just doesn't make sense (at least picking Paragon gives you a chance, even if the story was different and it didn't actually work out).tjzsf wrote...
In addition, the two alignments are supposed to be set up such that being paragon means you are more idealistic/trusting/concerned with the means, while renegade means you are more cynical/skeptical/concerned with the ends. However, the trend towards paragon options always getting a good result means that the sacrifices renegades make end up always being unnecessary. And unnecessary sacrifices to not make a renegade, they make a colossal dickasaurus.
No, this simply doesn't make sense. Changing the Paragon story has no affect on the Renegade story, you'll only annoy those making Paragon choices by making their story into something different. If you don't like the story then changing it to something else may well please you but it'll likely turn into something that at least as many people don't like. Mass Effect is a popular game with a well liked story, clearly the writers did something right even if it doesn't exactly go the way that some people might have liked.tjzsf wrote...
There are relatively easy ways to equalize the two, as many others have suggested. However, the other complaint is while you can equalize validation, it's much harder to equalize content. Killing the rachni seals off all rachni-related content, be it cameos or in-verse help against the Reapers. Thinking of an alternate content possibility is kind of hard. Thus, the easier way is to simply make it so that at least a few Paragon choices (things you have to use the dialog wheel for) result in suboptimal situations.
Modifié par Smeelia, 20 juin 2011 - 12:56 .
Well, yes. Hence the example of those tests being an unforseeable link and therefore one that is suboptimal. But I see no refutation of the others, so I will assume consensus of premise that rewards can be validation or content and must have foreseeability?Smeelia wrote...
Well, that depends on what you consider to be foreseeable and how you link acts together. If the Heretic Geth were dead then the Geth may not have been in a position to carry out those tests but then there's not necessarily a direct link between the decision to rewrite the Geth and them proceeding with the tests either. If you weren't born then you couldn't go on a killing spree but that doesn't mean that your parents should have avoided your birth since they couldn't be sure what kind of life you'd lead.
Renegades generally pass w/o recognition. Neutral decisions are neutral, so they don't really count for para/ren. Non-persuasion is actually what is meant here by para/ren, I use charm/intimidate to refer to persuasion options - for example, both charm/intimidate results in Helena Blake disbanding her gang, para/ren has to do with whether you believe her or whether you still take her down). The renegade option has you killing her off, the paragon option has you taking her word. As per your rebuttal, you admit it is "particularly bad for Renegades", implying agreement with the premise that renegades overall get less recognition.I'm not really convinced of this, we're mostly just talking about a few scenes and people have already come up with decent suggestions. Really, the issue is more that some decisions don't get any recognition at all and carrying over a game doesn't feel so worthwhile (the form the recognition takes isn't as important). It's worth mentioning that, while it is particularly bad for Renegades, Renegade decisions aren't the only ones that pass without recognition (some neutral decisions and non-persuasion choices are similarly disregarded).
actually, it's not the decision just being more moral to me; it's the decision being more moral according to the universe. Paragon decisions either get more validation or more content, sometimes both. All decisions are made with only the information available, as well as other things extrapolatable via personal/learned experience and basic cost/benefit or game theory or military tactics, which allow you to infer that a sacrifice may not be necessary. Example: Niftu Cal. It was not necessary to send him to his death. Doing it makes Shep seem like a jerkass (though it is, admittedly, funny), as there was in no way the high-off-his-ass volus could have helped. The fact that you say there are things the developers could do to help things validates my initial premise that there is a problem. I am choosing my story. The devs, in making a game with multiple endings with the idea that both paragon and renegade endings are more or less equally viable, ought to do better with the renegade path.-snip-
To sum up, the assessment of the "rightness" of a decision cannot be made with hindsight and must be based on the information that was available to the decision
-snip-
Yes it does. Changing the paragon story has an effect on players with multiple Shepards, who get to see that while Renegades seem to screw themselves into corners by pissing off too many people, the same thing happens to Paragons on occasion due to being too trusting. It creates a believable character and universe where not everything goes right all the time.No, this simply doesn't make sense. Changing the Paragon story has no affect on the Renegade story, you'll only annoy those making Paragon choices by making their story into something different. If you don't like the story then changing it to something else may well please you but it'll likely turn into something that at least as many people don't like. Mass Effect is a popular game with a well liked story, clearly the writers did something right even if it doesn't exactly go the way that some people might have liked.
I've had enough of your snide insinuations -punch-I probably didn't need to go on so long, sorry about that if I've overdone the same points (I've never been good at being succint anyway, as this section may demonstrate). I should probably also point out that I've used the word "you" a lot in this post
I suppose so, the main point is that the presentation of the consequences is important though. If it's implied that the destruction of Kahje is directly your fault for rewriting the Geth it wouldn't make sense but the fact that the Geth have become hostile is a reasonable potential outcome and the destruction of Kahje might occur as a consequence of that. It's somewhat complicated and different people will draw the lines in different places so it's not always going to be easy to make the consequences seem "fair".tjzsf wrote...
Well, yes. Hence the example of those tests being an unforseeable link and therefore one that is suboptimal. But I see no refutation of the others, so I will assume consensus of premise that rewards can be validation or content and must have foreseeability?
Yes, I'm not arguing from the perspective of one side or the other and I'd prefer a great game regardless of the choices the player makes. Basically, I think each option should be equally "rewarded" in terms of giving a particular outcome and recognition of the specific choice you made. I do think there's an issue that neutral options (which are generally more "professional") are barely options at all since they rarely, if ever, have unique consequences and often end up just giving the same results as a Paragon/Renegade decision and are assumed to have the same motivation as well (infact you could argue that "neutrals" are the worst off).tjzsf wrote...
Renegades generally pass w/o recognition. Neutral decisions are neutral, so they don't really count for para/ren. Non-persuasion is actually what is meant here by para/ren, I use charm/intimidate to refer to persuasion options - for example, both charm/intimidate results in Helena Blake disbanding her gang, para/ren has to do with whether you believe her or whether you still take her down). The renegade option has you killing her off, the paragon option has you taking her word. As per your rebuttal, you admit it is "particularly bad for Renegades", implying agreement with the premise that renegades overall get less recognition.
I agree, the number of Paragon decisions suffering the same is significantly lower and some allowable Renegade decisions are simply mean-spirited. Really, the issue seems to be more a lack of consistency in what each alignment is supposed to mean or a lack of clarity as to what alignment the choice you are selecting is actually from. The way I see it, "evil" choices don't really have a place in the game since they don't fit either available alignment and some of the writing fails to take note of this. This is possibly as a result of most games having good vs evil scales rather than the more complex scale of Mass Effect (which usually seems to be practical/cynical vs optimistic).tjzsf wrote...
actually, it's not the decision just being more moral to me; it's the decision being more moral according to the universe. Paragon decisions either get more validation or more content, sometimes both. All decisions are made with only the information available, as well as other things extrapolatable via personal/learned experience and basic cost/benefit or game theory or military tactics, which allow you to infer that a sacrifice may not be necessary. Example: Niftu Cal. It was not necessary to send him to his death. Doing it makes Shep seem like a jerkass (though it is, admittedly, funny), as there was in no way the high-off-his-ass volus could have helped. The fact that you say there are things the developers could do to help things validates my initial premise that there is a problem. I am choosing my story. The devs, in making a game with multiple endings with the idea that both paragon and renegade endings are more or less equally viable, ought to do better with the renegade path.
I play multiple Shepards of different alignments and have never had a problem with "winning" the game (so far). I don't really feel that the characters are unbelievable at all, Paragon Shepard may be lucky in having positive results of risky decisions but that's not anything like impossible. Renegade Shepard generally doesn't take chances so while they may not get the most "positive" outcomes (due to making them impossible) they generally don't get "negatives" either (beyond the obvious) and they're generally not "punished" with unreasonable or unforeseeable consequences. The writing for Paragon Shepards may be more consistent but that's a separate issue and making it worse would not improve the writing for Renegade Shepards.tjzsf wrote...
Yes it does. Changing the paragon story has an effect on players with multiple Shepards, who get to see that while Renegades seem to screw themselves into corners by pissing off too many people, the same thing happens to Paragons on occasion due to being too trusting. It creates a believable character and universe where not everything goes right all the time.
That one's for free, you'll regret the next one...tjzsf wrote...
I've had enough of your snide insinuations -punch-
CaptainZaysh wrote...
There's a lot of talk on these forums about how Paragon options are an "I win" button. In short: with the sole exception of the Elnora encounter, Paragon options never have negative outcomes. The commonly proposed solution is to Punish Paragons - make some of those decisions backfire.
CaptainZaysh wrote...
Here's an alternative idea. Instead of Punishing Paragons, let's think more about Rewarding Renegades. Instead of gimping the Paragon "I win" button, why not give the Renegades one, too?
This thread is either to discuss the merit of the idea itself (should there even be one "I win" button, let alone two?) or to suggest ways Renegades could have been Rewarded for their decisions. I'll kick off with one:
ME1 RACHNI DECISION.
Paragon reward: a cameo character who reinforces the Paragon decision and promises rachni aid in ME3.
Renegade reward: nada.
Now the Paragon Punishment route would probably suggest instead of a peaceful asari emissary, the Paragons should have to deal with a tearful asari refugee whose bondmate and nine adorable children were torn to shreds by terrifying psychic insects. But I don't think that's really ideal because all it amounts to is BioWare saying LOL U WERE PLAYING IT WRONG!
Proposed Renegade Reward: extra dialogue on Tuchanka. A krogan praises Shep for "having the quad to finish the job" and asks why s/he made the decision. Shep can express remorse (Paragon) or ruthlessness (Renegade). The krogan ends the conversation by saying that whatever the reason, Shep is a hero to a lot of krogan. "I just expected you to be a bit taller."
This way both Paragons and Renegades get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside - they're both playing it right. Thoughts?
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
What are you talking about? I didn't do that with my Paragon.Hah Yes Reapers wrote..
The Elnora thing is why this idea of "punishin' paragonz" fails hard. Once players find out that Elnora was the murderer, they always, ALWAYS kill her on their playthroughs from there on out. They might even reload the game to go back and kill her. So if they start making clear "right answer" and "wrong answer" decisions, then the whole concept of role-playing is effectively dead, you know what's right and wrong.
This hinges on the "hopefully". But again, "balancing" requires a certain degree of foreseeability.And no, contrary to what whiners claim, paragon decisions =/= positive outcome every time. Plenty of intelligent posters on here have elaborated as to how letting the council die, killing the rachni queen, saving the collector base, and other such renegade decisions can all have potential benefits in ME3 as well as how the opposite decisions have a chance of backfiring. The devs have the right idea here - each decisions has its own pros and cons. Hopefully, it is balanced between both sides in ME3.
Not the issue. Issue is that while it was my choice to pick the renegade option, sometimes that should get me more validation or more content or both than paragon. Otherwise it creates a sense that the universe just doesn't like renegades as much. Also, simply stating "picking the option is its own reward" is kinda false, otherwise we might as well say picking "neutral" is its own reward too, and we all know the neutral reward is the suckiest b/c it splits your p/r points on top of not being as good as top right.I agree, they dropped the ball a bit here. They really should have had something for both sides.
Still, it's hard to completely sympathize with it when you consider that, it was your choice to do what you did. Example: rachni queen. It promised to be peaceful, but you chose to do the "safe" thing by killing it. When you do that, you accept that you won't be getting any potential benefits that it would have to offer so you don't have to worry about any potential negatives you'd have to deal with if you release it. So basically, that's the reward: ensuring that you won't have any issues that come of it in the future. And that's basically the nature of *most* renegade logic.
Sarcastic Tasha wrote...
Maybe in ME3 when the Collector Base has been turned into an anti-reaper strip club and paragon Shep is being chased around by Samara who's pissed about arrival, renegade Shep will be enjoying a drink with Morinth and toasting her good choices.
FeriktheCerberus wrote...
Sarcastic Tasha wrote...
Maybe in ME3 when the Collector Base has been turned into an anti-reaper strip club and paragon Shep is being chased around by Samara who's pissed about arrival, renegade Shep will be enjoying a drink with Morinth and toasting her good choices.
This.
Also, keep in mind that Renegade Shepard won in Zaeed's loyalty mission, whereas Paragon failed for saving lives.
I'm pretty confident sparing the Collector Base (and choosing Morinth)will bring some unique contents to Renegade.
If not? Fine, being the badass Queen Shepard of the Universe is the reward enough.
Modifié par KevShep, 22 juin 2011 - 07:02 .
Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
CaptainZaysh wrote...
There's a lot of talk on these forums about how Paragon options are an "I win" button. In short: with the sole exception of the Elnora encounter, Paragon options never have negative outcomes. The commonly proposed solution is to Punish Paragons - make some of those decisions backfire.
The Elnora thing is why this idea of "punishin' paragonz" fails hard. Once players find out that Elnora was the murderer, they always, ALWAYS kill her on their playthroughs from there on out. They might even reload the game to go back and kill her. So if they start making clear "right answer" and "wrong answer" decisions, then the whole concept of role-playing is effectively dead, you know what's right and wrong.
Modifié par Gallimatia, 22 juin 2011 - 07:58 .
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
I've never gone back to change it if I made that choice. If you're choosing based on the outcome you want anyway then it shouldn't really matter which option the outcome is tied to since you'll always pick the choice that gives the outcome you want rather than picking a choice and accepting the outcome it gives. If anything, having the outcomes be consistently similar for each morality makes it easier to choose the outcome you want without having to load by clearly marking the type of outcome you're likely to see (which might be what you meant).Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
[The Elnora thing is why this idea of "punishin' paragonz" fails hard. Once players find out that Elnora was the murderer, they always, ALWAYS kill her on their playthroughs from there on out. They might even reload the game to go back and kill her. So if they start making clear "right answer" and "wrong answer" decisions, then the whole concept of role-playing is effectively dead, you know what's right and wrong.
The crime was murder and letting someone get away with murder doesn't seem like a particularly good way to show them that it's unacceptable.Gallimatia wrote...
She has commited a crime. I would only turn a criminal over to the police to be punished if I felt it served a strong puprose. This because punishments are intrinsically bad and only sometimes instrumentally good.
Modifié par Smeelia, 22 juin 2011 - 10:45 .
Gallimatia wrote...
She has commited a crime. I would only turn a criminal over to the police to be punished if I felt it served a strong puprose. This because punishments are intrinsically bad and only sometimes instrumentally good.
Retour en haut