175 réponses à ce sujet

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Didn't I say exactly that? Sometimes your philosophy - be it Paragon-like or Renegade-like - works out, sometimes it doesn't. But the Renegade-like philosophy's raison d'etre is results, ONLY results. That's always what the Renegade will judge his decisions by. It if gets results, then it is valid. If it never got results, with all the bad side effects it usually has, nobody but a jerk would ever want to make such decisions.

I don't see it that way, a Renegade should judge their decisions by the results that could be expected based on the information they had at the time, not the results that actually occured nor the results that could have occured had things gone differently.  Finding out later that a decision went wrong (perhaps there was some information you lacked) might make you want to go back and change it but it doesn't invalidate the decision you made at the time (it's also worth noting that you can rarely be certain an alternative would have been better, in ME it mostly comes from metagaming).  If you can know for absolute certain what the results of each choice will be then you'd always choose the best one but Shepard doesn't have that luxury.

As a player, the best results for you aren't necessarily the best for the galaxy in the game.  If you prefer the "happiest" outcome then obviously the choice that gives that result is the best one in your view but it shouldn't matter which in-game "morality" bar that choice is tied to.  The only reason the "morality" would matter is if you want both the "happiest" outcome and a particular morality but that's being very picky and it's optimistic to think that the writers would choose the exact combination you desire out of all the possibilities (which isn't to say it couldn't happen but they can only do it one way).

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thus, if Renegade is to be perceived as a valid philosophy in the ME games, it absolutely MUST sometimes get the best results in a big decision. The same is not true of the Paragon, because the Paragon-like philosophy is not mainly about results but about adhering to principles. The only advantage a Paragon can always expect to have over the Renegade is a good reputation. Sometimes that advantage is decisive, sometimes it just isn't worth sacrificing results for. That's what I'd like the games to reflect.

I don't agree, Renegade and Paragon are both valid choices in the game.  What you want is a different game, where the choices you make decide success or failure.  Mass Effect hasn't really been about that so far, it might well be a good game if it was but that's simply not the way it's been made.  Even if it was that kind of game, having a judgement system that measures the types of choices you make wouldn't be necessary beyond "best" and "worst" choices so Paragon and Renegade would be sort of irrelevant.  Such a game would most likely be about trying to guess what the writers chose as the "correct" route, I don't see that as any more appealing than getting to choose the type of story you want to see.

[RolandX9]

Trying to bring reason into a forum flame war is usually like using a dropper on a bonfire, but here goes:

Maybe it's possible for Paragons and Renegades to both get golden endings -- for their philosophies?

Think about it. There's no way that Bioware is going to make the Reaper War unwinnable for Renegades. But a full Renegade in Mass Effect is very human-centric (to be as polite as I can about it). That Renegade will be able to save the Earth somehow, but a lot of non-human governments aren't going to cooperate. Who's that more likely to end up burning, Shepard...or those governments? No Rachni = not having to share the galaxy with them later (or just having Cerberus-cloned Rachni shock troops instead of the Singing Planet). No krogan = no race of berserkers to worry about down the road. Turians? Come on, Renegade Shepard is going to dance on their graves, except for the "cool" ones like Garrus. Renegades get to save Earth and the galaxy in spite of everyone else's stupidity, and their reward is most likely getting a human-dominated galaxy while getting to ****** on the graves of the foolish and saying "I warned you" to the survivors. Saving everyone isn't on Renegade Shepard's agenda. Just winning.

Meanwhile, Paragon Shepard gets to unite the races of Council Space (and possibly beyond) and rescue the Earth with a Big Damn Heroes moment worthy of three games of playing nice in spite of the contrariness of just about everyone. He gets the geth and the quarians to make peace, becomes the savior of the rachni (I really, really want to see the rachni fleet fly in, with their battlecry translating roughly to "we sing for the Shepard!"), heals the krogan, hands the Council their clue, and generally saves as many sentients as can remotely possibly be saved. The galaxy the Paragon inherits is messier and more complicated, but worth it to that Shepard.

Is it just me, or are a lot of people having trouble with this idea?

Now Paragades...well, they're hosed. (I have a Paragade Shepard. I sympathize.)

[ReallyRue]

Personally I prefer having no morality system, like in Drgaon Age. Therefore I don't have to worry about renegades and paragons and just be the neutral I am. If left to my own devices, I'd probably have a more balanced morality in ME, but the charm/intimidate requirements mean I have to invest in one morality or the other in order to make the most of the game.

[Skirata129]

What really pissed me off is that I use all of the combat related interupts but I prefer being polite in conversation. however to have a succesful playthrough where you retain everyone's loyalty and get the best outcomes you have to be a ****** whenever the option presents itself. dialogue should not be tied into alignment.

[CannonO]

I kind of like that neither side is a guarantee that you will feel good or satisfied with the result. I avoids degrading one or the other from a quality level. Now I don't think they are really balanced, but I don't feel like one is put down and the other is pushed as the 'true story' option.

[Undertone]

RolandX9 wrote...

Trying to bring reason into a forum flame war is usually like using a dropper on a bonfire, but here goes:

Maybe it's possible for Paragons and Renegades to both get golden endings -- for their philosophies?

Think about it. There's no way that Bioware is going to make the Reaper War unwinnable for Renegades. But a full Renegade in Mass Effect is very human-centric (to be as polite as I can about it). That Renegade will be able to save the Earth somehow, but a lot of non-human governments aren't going to cooperate. Who's that more likely to end up burning, Shepard...or those governments? No Rachni = not having to share the galaxy with them later (or just having Cerberus-cloned Rachni shock troops instead of the Singing Planet). No krogan = no race of berserkers to worry about down the road. Turians? Come on, Renegade Shepard is going to dance on their graves, except for the "cool" ones like Garrus. Renegades get to save Earth and the galaxy in spite of everyone else's stupidity, and their reward is most likely getting a human-dominated galaxy while getting to ****** on the graves of the foolish and saying "I warned you" to the survivors. Saving everyone isn't on Renegade Shepard's agenda. Just winning.

Meanwhile, Paragon Shepard gets to unite the races of Council Space (and possibly beyond) and rescue the Earth with a Big Damn Heroes moment worthy of three games of playing nice in spite of the contrariness of just about everyone. He gets the geth and the quarians to make peace, becomes the savior of the rachni (I really, really want to see the rachni fleet fly in, with their battlecry translating roughly to "we sing for the Shepard!"), heals the krogan, hands the Council their clue, and generally saves as many sentients as can remotely possibly be saved. The galaxy the Paragon inherits is messier and more complicated, but worth it to that Shepard.

Is it just me, or are a lot of people having trouble with this idea?

Now Paragades...well, they're hosed. (I have a Paragade Shepard. I sympathize.)

I will be very happy with such outcome. I never had problem with the paragon route (despite that it's not my way) because I like contrast. I never have problems with Paragons so long they are not the self-righteous type who insist playing Renegade is: 

1. Wrong
2. Just for the lulz
3. To be an ****
4. Hate-aliens/Human supremacist/Cerberus lover (separetely or all of those three)
5. I should get rightfully punished and all my decisions wrong because of 1. 2. 3. and 4.

Now if the same was said about KotoR - they would be correct. I always did lean a little bit to the dark side for various reasons (too long to explain). I said countless times however this isn't dark or light/evil or good. It's about different methodology.

I can't help but feel however a bias towards the Paragons in terms of content and choices. The first is self-explanatory. As for choices: As many have said the last choice in ME1 seems absurd - indeed to me it seemed also that anything other then "Focus on Sovereign" is completely illogical. The Paragon choice however saves the Galaxy and the Council whereas the first one succceeds in only one with negative repercussions hereafter. Similarly the last choice in ME2 ends up benefiting the Paragons yet again. Destroying the Collector base with all the possible knowledge we could potentially learn seems absurd. This is followed by harassing from the *entire* squad Shepard has, telling him/her how wrong saving the base is. Even those who previously argued for saving it. Even Miranda suddently second-guesses TIM. And of course Cerberus is now working for the Reapers in ME3.

I can't help but feel that every sensible, logical decision returns as a yet another slap to the renegades. Why present two paths, when there's a clear bias and "correctness" to only one of them? And yes this is from what we know so far.

Morality system in ME2 is something entirely else. The system is flawed pushing you to go to either one extremity and punishing neutral players the most.

Modifié par Undertone, 21 juin 2011 - 10:00 .

[Skirata129]

particularly rescuing the Council in ME1. that just struck me at the time as "I'd have to be an idiot to jeapordize the galaxy for three politicians." but apparently idiots are rewarded with Council meetings and confirmed Spectre status.

[Sebby]

Renegade outcomes are the epitome of hollow victories with the Council and CB decisions being the best examples. Then there's outcomes where there's little to no reference at all (Rachni Queen and various criminals dead) that make it seem like they never even happened.

[Undertone]

Seboist wrote...

Renegade outcomes are the epitome of hollow victories with the Council and CB decisions being the best examples. Then there's outcomes where there's little to no reference at all (Rachni Queen and various criminals dead) that make it seem like they never even happened.

I think actually the second is even more annoying then the first. I can hardly recall a single reflection or reference to anything renegade I did in ME1 (except the Council). At least being wrong with all the decisions (so far) gets some reaction from me.

[Manic Sheep]

As a person whos main makes a fair amount of renegade decisions but for the most part stays away from the **** dialogue. I’m actually fairly happy with how that play through is going. I don’t actually want the “best” outcome. I want there to be sacrifices and things to go badly sometimes. That’s why I play renegade, it be weird if I was taking the cynical option and getting sunshine and roses back. I had a few issue with it, namely the lack of renegade follow thru like not seeing the new council  These things are small so there not worth throwing a hissy fit about but it’s not a trend I want to see continue in ME3 and those cameos even tho they were small in ME2 do make a difference. Its acknowledgement of your decisions rather than it being like it never happen at all. A “negative” consequence is better than a 0. The end decision I think they really overkilled with the renegade choice and that one did ****** me off. I wouldn’t necessarily expect any squadmate to be jumping for joy about giving he base to Cerberus but having every squadmate pissy at you and disagree with the decision regardless of what they say at the base was stupid. Some of the renegade decisions do need to result in and actual long term advantage rather than a negative or nothing.

I think allot of the renegade interupts shoud not have been renegade, like shooting the mech. Tho it really dose not make a differnance since you are not losing out on pragon points by taking many of them so It dose not hurt you.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 22 juin 2011 - 12:40 .

[AlphaDormante]

I often identify as Paragon, but the decisions I make aren't determined purely by ethics. Morals are a part of my decision-making process, as is is logic, but the factor that has the biggest sway on me is usually the amount of trust I have in any involved organizations and systems. This leads me to renegade decisions as well as paragon ones, but somehow the latter more often ends up being the one I go with.

A big example is the Collector base - it would have been an excellent resource and I don't deny that. My problem was in handing it over to Cerberus, whom I didn't trust one bit not to screw it up. If there's anything I learned about TIM during ME2, it's that he's dangerously ambitious and that he likes to gamble with high stakes to reach high goals. I'm not putting an entire base full of Reaper technology in his hands for him to play around with.

I also focused my attacks on Sovereign and got screwed over for it. I never really understood that choice either, really...it's between "logical choice with a douchebag tone" and "logical choice that makes everyone treat you like you chose the douchebag tone anyway". And then of course there's the option to save the Council, but their rank never meant jack to me when the entire Citatel was crumbling into pieces. In my opinion, telling the fleet to take out Sovereign as quickly as possible in order to save civilians was more morally correct than saving the Council...given the fact that there were tons of civilians were also on the Ascension wasn't even touched on.

Modifié par AlphaDormante, 21 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[KingDavid007]

I agree. It is pretty bullcrap if paragon players dont get punished. I am a paragon player. Often in real life, when you do good things, it doesnt necesarily mean that you'll not get stabbed in the back for it. Especially in war. I watched a History channel show on ace pilot fighters and one of em said quote "You have to be a mean son of a ****!'.

Also in Saving Private Ryan, there was a scene when the squad chose not to kill a single german. Eventually it comes to bite them in the ass when that german regroups with his army and kills members of the squad.

That is what BIOWARE should put in and not make it like some kind of generic hero game where the goody 2 shoes manages to get everything in his desired path.

[Manic Sheep]

KingDavid007 wrote...

I agree. It is pretty bullcrap if paragon players dont get punished. I am a paragon player. Often in real life, when you do good things, it doesnt necesarily mean that you'll not get stabbed in the back for it. Especially in war. I watched a History channel show on ace pilot fighters and one of em said quote "You have to be a mean son of a ****!'.

Also in Saving Private Ryan, there was a scene when the squad chose not to kill a single german. Eventually it comes to bite them in the ass when that german regroups with his army and kills members of the squad.

That is what BIOWARE should put in and not make it like some kind of generic hero game where the goody 2 shoes manages to get everything in his desired path.

That too.
I don't want everything turning out well for my paragon because that not very interesting to me. I find paragon more interesting to play when you ignore some of the special speech options and just pick the white option.

[ME-ParaShep]

King Zeel wrote...

LGTX wrote...

King Zeel wrote...

If you're going to give us a morality choice make it feel like a choice and less like DO THIS IF U WANT TO BE PUNISHED.

Real choices don't have equal outcomes. Your point backfires.

Oh yeah, and like all "real choices" theres always just a GOOD and a Evil. Your point backfires, this is a game, if they want to give me the illusion of choice, then atleast give me a pratical one.

Why don't people choose options that's the best in their right minds? Apparently I see that people (like you) are angry over Renegade options. Being a Renegade doesn't have to mean that you kill off Wrex or Save the Collector Base, being a Renegade is choosing options that get things done no matter the cost. Being a Paragon is doing the "good things" and trying to make the best decisions if possible, even if some choices aren't the best as they could be. If you're venting about the shallowness of moral choices then do choices that's right for you, your team, and the galaxy in the long run.

I say that if you're going to be a Renegade, make Renegade choices AND smart choices. Not choices that are obviously troublesome. I'd say that sparing or killing Wrex isn't majorly a matter of morality, but of a reason to save or destroy a squadmate. If you find Wrex to be evil and won't see the right from wrong, you'll kill him. If you find Wrex to be understanding and you think that you can convince him to see what's right and wrong, you'll spare him. It's not being what is stereotypicalized as Paragon or Renegade, it's following your ideals.

Bottom line: Choose Paragon options if you agree with them and choose Renegade options if you agree with them.

[Haverrun]

Can someone define Paragade for me? I made mostly Paragon decisions and did nearly all the Renegade interrupts. Would that go under Paragade?

[Markinator_123]

I personally think that the Mass Effect series claims that it is necessary for the hero to do bad things. The question is when and how far.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 22 juin 2011 - 01:41 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

I'm a paragade so I mix it up with all the options depending how what is happening in scene so my shep is reasonable most of the time. The few para lines I picked he wasn't so idealistic as the SM speeches presented he was a few para lines make me cringe and are way too old comic hero sounding. Para shep is killing and hunting people down he can't be too goody toe shoes he has to apply some real world knowledge into the events knowing the people he meets are most likely going to try to screw him over most people we run into on missions are there for not so good reasons you can't take them at face value even some npcs are like this para shep must know this no one can give everyone the benefit of the doubt and come out fine.

I did like the para option and wording for OL and he punched Archer like the man deserved I wish a few more responses like this existed where para shep shows feelings when he talks he could be sad, happy, or want to make a situation right instead of idealistic speeches that sound like its a book he's reading then anything else. I guess I'm saying para shep should be more practical and down to Earth shep.

What I really think is not needed is the whole neon sign para/ren interrupts just do an interrupt minus the flashing and if the player presses it something will happen weather he blows someone up to shut them up or he takes a bullet for someone it won't be para gets 5pts or ren gets 5pts it will just be both sides of the meter gain points.


EDIT: User Question what is paragade? It's a person who is a paragon but has renegade points too. There is the opposite Renagon which is the player is more ren but also has para too these type of people aren't solely para or rens they're a mix.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 22 juin 2011 - 12:36 .

[Ruthac_Arus]

KingDavid007 wrote...

I agree. It is pretty bullcrap if paragon players dont get punished. I am a paragon player. Often in real life, when you do good things, it doesnt necesarily mean that you'll not get stabbed in the back for it. Especially in war. I watched a History channel show on ace pilot fighters and one of em said quote "You have to be a mean son of a ****!'.

Also in Saving Private Ryan, there was a scene when the squad chose not to kill a single german. Eventually it comes to bite them in the ass when that german regroups with his army and kills members of the squad.

That is what BIOWARE should put in and not make it like some kind of generic hero game where the goody 2 shoes manages to get everything in his desired path.

I'd rather not let players be "punished" for making choices. That implies Bioware's out to get people for choosing a particular path. Repercussions for making a tough choice, on the other hand...

In the instance of many aliens disliking Shepard for letting the council die, whether they were outright Renegade about the choice or not, is a perfectly realistic repercussion. There's almost always a vocal minority at the very least, who are out to smear or hate on upstarts, persons in power, etc, and with Shepard as a symbol of the new powers that be (plus known as the one who made the call that the power balance hinged on), the Commander is a prime target for the hatedom.

However, dislike/hate humanity and Shepard as these factions may, humanity's still in better shape with Renegade/neutral ending of ME1. When push comes to shove, a human-centric council will likely be able to
muster (or bully) more help specifically for humans in ME3... not to mention the
Collector base choice. I'm still not completely convinced Cerberus didn't get
good research out of if kept, even if you do have to rip it from their
agents' cold, dead hands in ME3. Back on track, those who let the Council die didn't lose a number of heavy warships defending the Destiny Ascension either, which may very well come back to bite Paragons (which all my characters are- they knew the risks of rescuing the Ascension, and were willing to stand by them even before I as a plater knew Sovereign would go down regardless) in the butt even if aliens in general like humans better.

So yeah, tl;dr, I think the many individual choices (large and small, regardless of morality), from both games, may very well have repercussions that change some story variables, making it easier in some respects (ex: humanity could have bully pulpit powers in Renegade ME1 ending, and have a stronger fleet by default) and harder in others (ex: riffing from previous example, getting individuals to work with Shepard may be tougher in ME3), rather than specifically punishing one choice for, on the surface, seeming "better". Which'd make for truly awesome replay value, to say the least.

[Golden Owl]

Personally I like the grittier edge for paragon Shep in ME2....he just feels more real to me...could a truly paragon soul kill with as much ease without looking for alternative options as Shep does?

I was watching 'The Dark Knight' again the other night and starting comparing Bat Mans behavior and methods to my paragon Shep....Bat Man is a dark character, though still manages to deal with a lot of situations and criminals without the death count Shep has....Just something I noted.

[onelifecrisis]

AlphaDormante wrote...

I often identify as Paragon, but the decisions I make aren't determined purely by ethics. Morals are a part of my decision-making process, as is is logic, but the factor that has the biggest sway on me is usually the amount of trust I have in any involved organizations and systems. This leads me to renegade decisions as well as paragon ones, but somehow the latter more often ends up being the one I go with.

A big example is the Collector base - it would have been an excellent resource and I don't deny that. My problem was in handing it over to Cerberus, whom I didn't trust one bit not to screw it up. If there's anything I learned about TIM during ME2, it's that he's dangerously ambitious and that he likes to gamble with high stakes to reach high goals. I'm not putting an entire base full of Reaper technology in his hands for him to play around with.

I also focused my attacks on Sovereign and got screwed over for it. I never really understood that choice either, really...it's between "logical choice with a douchebag tone" and "logical choice that makes everyone treat you like you chose the douchebag tone anyway". And then of course there's the option to save the Council, but their rank never meant jack to me when the entire Citatel was crumbling into pieces. In my opinion, telling the fleet to take out Sovereign as quickly as possible in order to save civilians was more morally correct than saving the Council...given the fact that there were tons of civilians were also on the Ascension wasn't even touched on.

+1 to all of that.

[Son of Illusive Man]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I agree with this

To me, the main difference was always this:
(1) Paragons tend to value principles over results
(2) Renegades tend to value results over principles.

What Paragon players often don't get: In the real world, anyone with any kind of real power will not get away without making the occasional Renegade-like decision, will not get away with never having to sacrifice a principle for a result, either to stay in power or to get *anything* done that's worth doing in the first place. Again: thus: Arrival. It removes the delusion that you can always get things done without having to make a really hard decision. Only it's not the player's decision because Bioware didn't want to present those Paragons who'd choose to ignore all this with a game over screen for making an idiotic choice.

In the real world, the Renegade-like philosophy is a valid one for the *sole* reason that it gets results, and usually gets them faster and more decisively than the Paragon-like. The only question is whether the result is worth the bad side effects. Sometimes it's not, sometimes it is. Sometimes people think it is but it isn't, sometimes people think it isn't but it would be. That's what I'd like the games to reflect. 

Then again, this brings us back to the point of the writing being inconsistent.  While sometimes paragon is idealistic and renegade is realistic, at other times, renegade is just being an ass for no reason.  

I'm mostly paragon, but I have to take the renegade route sometimes.  For example, in Bring Down the Sky,  it just made sense to kill the guy, because saving the hostages would not prevent him from taking more hostages and doing the same thing.  Similarly, I just couldn't resist some of the renegade interrupts (Weyrloc, for example).

The writing needs to be consistent, or they need to make 4 response categories: Paragon, Neutral, Ruthless, and Complete Jerk

Modifié par Son of Illusive Man, 22 juin 2011 - 03:18 .

[Son of Illusive Man]

ReallyRue wrote...

Personally I prefer having no morality system, like in Drgaon Age. Therefore I don't have to worry about renegades and paragons and just be the neutral I am. If left to my own devices, I'd probably have a more balanced morality in ME, but the charm/intimidate requirements mean I have to invest in one morality or the other in order to make the most of the game.

ME1 had a nice system, but it was more efficient to put all points into one than spread them evenly.

ME2 was crappy because to gain the advantages of persuasion later on, you had to charm/intimidate refularly, and from early on.  Paragades/Renegons were basically screwed.  

ME3 should return to the ME1 skill based model, but have a unified skill called "Persuasion".  This way, players can actually choose to invest in the skill if they know they're the type of person who likes to talk their way out of things, but also isn't forced down one path from the start.

[In Exile]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
'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.

Sure. But it has to make sense for the consequence to follow. Put another way: I don't think Bioware should have an equal number of + and - outcomes for paragon and renegade decisions.