175 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

One major problem is that renegade/paragon aren't actually written tobe consistent. Sometimes, paragon is boyscout nice and renegade is evil jerk. Other times, paragon is naive and renegade is pragmatic. Still other times, paragon is diplomatic and renegade is aggressive. It varies.

The thing is, ME2 didn't really have a situation where you could be the hero, aside from the SM. And Paragon Shepard does get his inspirational hero moments during the SM.

[Lumikki]

I my opinion, this isn't paragon or renegade. It's more like some people likes to play "bad boy", but want to get hero rewards. Not sure where they get this idea that playing bad should be rewarded.

[CannonO]

Renegade always seemed, as others have said, like a path to short term reward. It gives a small satisfaction when you defeat someone before you even fight, or confiscate something for yourself, but in the end, you get a hero's story with Paragon and it feels like an add up to goodness.

[ODST 5723]

I'm a Paragade, not because I intend for it to happen but because when I choose the options that make the most sense to me in a particular scenario that's how it plays out.

Some situations call for renegade actions, and I can't help but select them as they make the most sense. I also agreed with most of the renegade interrupts, especially some of the ones on Tuchanka. Those scenes playout out better, IMO, based on the mix of paragon, neutral and renegade choices I made.

[Repearized Miranda]

Kadzin wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kadzin wrote...
I personally think that if you want to play the "get the job done" guy, that would be a Paragade, who uses both paragon and renegade choices.

I agree with this - theoretically it should work that way. The "get the job done" attitude would put practicality before ideology and result in a mix of Paragon and Renegade decisions. The problem is that so far the Paragon decisions have almost *always* resulted in the better outcome, making Paragon the "I win" button as well as the "I can feel good" button, while Renegades got a few admittedly nice interrupts and a negligible amount of money - totally inconsequential rewards. What we need is one or two big storyline decisions where the Renegade decision pays off in a big way and the Paragon decision backfires badly. It's OK if we need to wait for the epilogue for it to materialize. We need decisions like choosing Bhelen in DAO. Obviously a choice of dubious morality, but in the end without any doubt the better one for the big picture.

There wasn't a BIG backfire on Paragon in ME2 but there was a small one in Samara Dosier mission. If you let the young asari merc go, you later find out that she in fact was the killer.
Personally I wouldn't mind too much about a big paragon decision backfiring on me, as long as I don't get any Renegade for it or lose squadmates/their loyalty over it. Basicly as long as the problem is fixable.
As far as Renegade paying off? Well that depends in which way. If it's money? Sure if it affects game mechanics, like helping you fight a boss or something, sure, but if it affects the story line in some way, I am not sure, I guess it all depends on how it is executed.

I'd like to "amend" the Elnora sentence because I did kill her and still found out that she was the kiler - to whixh Garrus says: "So Elnora was the killer. It's a good thing we took her out." Does Asari boss lady find out? I believe so, but she was probably going to kill Elnora anyway or at least give her a no-win task, so she could kill Elnora herself. Asari Boss Lady didn't have to worry about that so.

Having said this, I've also let Elnora go not without a threat of course (Paragon choice); yet, that still says that if Elnora doesn't find and kill, I will! (Just goes to show that Paragons can be just as "bad" as renegades, Of course, there's the "bad writing" excuse, but even if they went in the opposite direction for both, I doubt everyone woukd be satisfied.

Might I add also that I'm 44% paragon - AND 100% Renegade (while possibly having the same scale in ME1) Meaning, I still had some game left, so why not go in the other direction. Having said this, I didn't do that solely because of the meters, but it could be that those good choices come back to bite me in the ass! (I doubt it as the Paragon in me can't help, but wipe away tears. ie: The Diana/Nef sub-plot amid the Samara/Morinth plot)

[LGTX]

@CaptainZaysh, you do realize that the post you quoted was quoting one in return, right?

[The Baconer]

I'd like to have all morality meters in video games scrapped completely but I guess people love gimmicks.

[Ieldra]

I would like to add this to the debate:

Gameplay rewards don't balance storyline rewards. I don't care one bit about badass interrupts or a bit of added content if the big main plot decisions all favor Paragons (we aren't there yet....and I hope we won't be, but the setup suggests they're going that way).

Sidequest rewards don't balance main plot rewards. I don't care one bit about Elnora - which isn't even a typical decision gamble because you can know in advance she's a killer - if the big main plot decisions all favor Paragons.

I want the Renegade decisions that shape the after-the-Reapers galaxy to have a significant positive effect along with their drawbacks, and I want the Paragon decisions that shape the after-the-Reapers galaxy to have a significant drawback along with their positive effect. I also want at least one of the big Renegade decisions to have a net positive effect that the Paragon alternative doesn't have.

For instance like this:

(1) Paragon decisions will add their weight to make the galaxy a more stable and peaceful place imbued with a spirit of co-operation for a significant time. Inter-species-relations are good and there are few armed conflicts, resulting in a prosperity unknown to the pre-war galaxy. But all this comes at a price: cultural and technological stagnation compared with the alternative. The directives of the Council regarding exploration of the unknown reaches of the galaxy and AI research are in full force and possibly even extended to other avenues of research.

(2) Renegade decisions will add their weight to make the galaxy a more dynamic place imbued by a spirit of exploration and expansion. Technological advancement has picked up pace, regulations have loosened, and people are looking outward with curiosity rather than fear. But all that comes at a price. There is little trust between the species because of the fallout of Shepard's decisions in the war, which tended to favor humans above the other species. There is also the political and cultural instability that inevitably accompanies a fast-changing world. Armed conflicts abound and diplomacy has a hard time keeping things reasonably functional.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I would like to add this to the debate:

Gameplay rewards don't balance storyline rewards. I don't care one bit about badass interrupts or a bit of added content if the big main plot decisions all favor Paragons (we aren't there yet....and I hope we won't be, but the setup suggests they're going that way).

Why should there be a reward for the renegade decisions so far? In ME1, killing the rachni  was about not taking changes. The "victory" for the Renegades is that the rachni no longer exist. If it turns out that not killing the queen was worth it because the queen was not indoctrinated, then why should the Renegades get any kind of satisfaction? Inversely, if the queen was still indoctrinated, why should paragons get a plot reward elsewhere?

I want the Renegade decisions that shape the after-the-Reapers galaxy to have a significant positive effect along with their drawbacks, and I want the Paragon decisions that shape the after-the-Reapers galaxy to have a significant drawback along with their positive effect. I also want at least one of the big Renegade decisions to have a net positive effect that the Paragon alternative doesn't have.

ME2 had renegade decisions that might have benefits - the geth choice and the krogan choice come to mind. But generally, pure renegades mean a killswitch for everything: why should killing everything net a reward?

But all this comes at a price: cultural and technological stagnation compared with the alternative. The directives of the Council regarding exploration of the unknown reaches of the galaxy and AI research are in full force and possibly even extended to other avenues of research.

Why does this relate to greater cooperation at all? If anything, greater cooperation and less prejudice would lead to more research. Cooperation is always a net benefit. The only possible disadvantages are exploitability - but that would be something like the economy collapsing becuase of volus insider trading.

(2) Renegade decisions will add their weight to make the galaxy a more dynamic place imbued by a spirit of exploration and expansion. Technological advancement has picked up pace, regulations have loosened, and people are looking outward with curiosity rather than fear. But all that comes at a price. There is little trust between the species because of the fallout of Shepard's decisions in the war, which tended to favor humans above the other species. There is also the political and cultural instability that inevitably accompanies a fast-changing world. Armed conflicts abound and diplomacy has a hard time keeping things reasonably functional.

Why would renegade decisions lead to exploration or expansion instead of a harsh military dictatorship and people being turned into reaper goo using the base?

That makes even less sense.

[Dean_the_Young]

In Exile wrote...

ME2 had renegade decisions that might have benefits - the geth choice and the krogan choice come to mind. But generally, pure renegades mean a killswitch for everything: why should killing everything net a reward?

Why should killing potentially very dangerous people ever have good dividends in the future?

You're really asking that?

[Skirata129]

Some of the decisions don't follow the long term good= parago, short term=renegade. for my example, the rachni. I saved them as a renegade player because her story sounded plausible and I thought of her as a potential ally against the reapers, same for the geth. This can have dire long term effects as both of these races could very well become the adversaries of other species in the future, but I thought stopping the reapers to be more important.

[Dragoncloud]

Well, i always figured my shepards patience was starting to wear a little thin with the whole dying & being revived, having to work for cerberus, having pretty much the whole alliance shun her, etc...

It all felt pretty in line with how i'd have played her (despite being a true paragon of virtue in the first one), constantly trying to see the best in people started to wear a little thin near the end of me1, me2 was just a continuation of it.

If i'd change anything its how you have to be either paragon or renegade, sometimes taking one or the other can mess up conversation options. Keep track of peoples paragon/renegade choices, but keep a general score for conversation options, where the p/r score that is highest decides which of the p/r options you can choose.

About the renegades whining about paragons: In case you haven't noticed the 'default' shep is done as a mostly renegade character, and acting like an ass shouldn't (in most cases) be rewarded. (although i really am curious how they're going to handle the Rachni/Geth thing, i let the rachni live, but blew up the geth, which in my opinion was the more paragon option, brainwashing, even if its machines just doesn't feel right.) Just as letting a person live might not always be a good thing. (the only reason mordin lives is because he is working to alleviate the problem of the genophage, else i'd have thrown his crazy mind out of the airlock, and i killed of zaeed, universe is better of without him.)

@King Zeel: wanting to 'punish' players for not making the same choices as you is an attack.

[Alpha-Centuri]

The genophage "paragon" decision could  potentially unravel every bit of good that Wrex is doing on Tuchanka. If the Krogan are free to populate again, they will go right back to killing each other instead of the unification that is going on now.

The rachni is something that looks pretty bad about now, as well as the Geth.

I think we have to take note that paragons are as likely to be punished as renegades. To the poster who said all the plot points are paragon, I point you to Arrival. That's a renegade decision no matter how you cut it. This is the same Shepard that if you so choose, destroys a weapon that could be used against the Reapers with the rationale of "I don't want to stoop to their level.

Can someone show me which paragon choices are better than the renegade ones throughout the games?

Kill the Council, and you started an arms race that increases production of warships for both the Turians and Humans. That doesn't sound too bad. The plot stays the same. For all choices throughout the game, the effect is an added or removed enemy in gameplay.

The differences between paragon and renegade are to me an illusion. It changes the facade a little, but there are no actual ramifications that changes the story throughout ME1 and ME2. Maybe wrex... But even a paragon who isn't high enough watches Ashley shoot him, so that's not exclusive to renegades. Maybe it will be different in ME3, but that has been Bioware's formula of late.

Just my 2 cents. Note: I'm not bashing their formula of illusion of choice, because it's highly satisfying and the most "fair". They are relatively equal, to make them any more closer would make them not matter at all.

[Hathur]

Douchebaggery is its own reward. :innocent:

Modifié par Hathur, 21 juin 2011 - 07:03 .

[In Exile]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why should killing potentially very dangerous people ever have good dividends in the future?

You're really asking that?

No. I'm asking why there should be another reward beyond that thing being dead. If it turns out it was a bad choice, killing potentially dangerous people was done on the "not worth the risk" calculus. Why does it matter how it happens to turn out in the end? Vindication?

[In Exile]

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
I think we have to take note that paragons are as likely to be punished as renegades. To the poster who said all the plot points are paragon, I point you to Arrival. That's a renegade decision no matter how you cut it. This is the same Shepard that if you so choose, destroys a weapon that could be used against the Reapers with the rationale of "I don't want to stoop to their level.

That's what Shepard says, but there are other, less silly, reasons.

Kill the Council, and you started an arms race that increases production of warships for both the Turians and Humans. That doesn't sound too bad. The plot stays the same. For all choices throughout the game, the effect is an added or removed enemy in gameplay.

In fact, it's a rational outcome independent of your motive. Why would the galaxy present it's rear end for humanity to pillage after what effectively amounts to a coup d'etat?

[Skirata129]

a coup d'etat implies that we did the killing, while we effectively saved the galaxy's collective ass. and I'm glad I started an arms race. more weapons to kill reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

In Exile wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why should killing potentially very dangerous people ever have good dividends in the future?

You're really asking that?

No. I'm asking why there should be another reward beyond that thing being dead. If it turns out it was a bad choice, killing potentially dangerous people was done on the "not worth the risk" calculus. Why does it matter how it happens to turn out in the end? Vindication?

Sure. And reasonable consequences. And story... which is supposed to be part of the franchise.

Sometimes killing someone should have bad consequences: you lose out on a reward, you realize you were wrong, something good doesn't happen later (storywise), etc..

Sometimes killing someone should have good consequences: you receive a reward you would not otherwise have, you realize you were completely correct, something bad doesn't happen later (storywise), etc.


'Making the choice is its own reward' is a fundamentally flawed conceit in a video game that sells itself as being based upon touch choices that are supposed to be equivalent on average in justification and outcomes.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 juin 2011 - 07:16 .

[Undertone]

Hathur wrote...

Douchebaggery is its own reward. :innocent:

I'm actually having a real struggle to write a sensible serious post after reading all 99% percent bull**** by most of the paragons in this threat.

Renegade doesn't equate evil. Paragon doesn't equate good. Get in your heads please - we are not playing light or dark side. This isn't Star Wars.

It's a different method in addressing problems and renegade isn't about killing everything possible to be killed. Plus I'm sorry I find it ridicilous how hardcore criminals are simly talk-jutsu-ed by Shepard into becoming proper citizens.

To me playing mostly renegade means a real story. Not some magic-fix-it-all-blue-button. And no, I don't go renegade 100%. Playing one-sided characters is just plain stupid.

Luckily you have Dean here to explain and argue reasonably. I really don't have such temper.

Seriously where are the real Paragons, the ones I actually respect.

Modifié par Undertone, 21 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Hathur wrote...

Douchebaggery is its own reward. :innocent:

So should moralalizing sociopathy.

[Skirata129]

Undertone wrote...

I'm actually having a real struggle to write a sensible serious post after reading all 99% percent bull**** by most of the paragons in this threat.

Renegade doesn't equate evil. Paragon doesn't equate good. Get in your heads please - we are not playing light or dark side. This isn't Star Wars.

It's a different method in addressing problems and renegade isn't about killing everything possible to be killed. Plus I'm sorry I find it ridicilous how hardcore criminals are simly talk-jutsu-ed by Shepard into becoming proper citizens.

To me playing mostly renegade means a real story. Not some magic-fix-it-all-blue-button. And no, I don't go renegade 100%. Playing one-sided characters is just plain stupid.

Luckily you have Dean here to explain and argue reasonably. I really don't have such temper.

Seriously where are the real Paragons, the ones I actually respect.

THANK YOU!    ^ this.

[jbblue05]

Hathur wrote...

Douchebaggery is its own reward. :innocent:

Paragons are sefl-tighteous douchebags

[Undertone]

What's even more funny is that at the mere thought of paragons getting punished for some choice they did, they get furious. "How is it possible to get punished for this!? It's impossible for the Rachni to be evil."

Of course renegades on the other hand have to be happy that their choices end up being wrong all the time regardless that most of the choices make much more logical or strategical sense. [irony] But you know somehow renegade equates being an ****, so that on it's own is a reward, get used to it.[/irony]

(at least as things seemed to be with speculations and what-not, Rachni being allies established in ME2, and Cerberus being enemy established in ME3).

Modifié par Undertone, 21 juin 2011 - 07:28 .

[RolandX9]

While I had a major issue with ME2 when it comes to being a Paragon -- they force you to work with Cerberus, for cryin' out loud -- I really don't think this is going to be a problem in 3. Honestly, I feel bad for the Renegades at the moment. A Shepard who invested heavily in working with Cerberus shouldn't have all that work go to waste. It might still not, since bringing Cerberus back around might be a major focus for them in 3, but for the moment it looks bad for the Sheps in red. Just let me save all the species of the galaxy to some extent (and shoot TIM in the face) and the Renegades can have all the diabolic success they want.

[Dean_the_Young]

Undertone wrote...

Luckily you have Dean here to explain and argue reasonably. I really don't have such temper.

I have it on Paragon Authority that I am, in fact, highly unreasonable. And a bit of an ass at times.