133 réponses à ce sujet

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

What are the morally black options in ME2? The only one off the top of my head is picking Morinth over Samara. Leaving people to die like the sick batarian and that injured salarian is certainly heartless, but not evil.

Leaving people to die is pretty evil. But really, the problem with P/R morality in ME2 is that being a Renegade is less about being pragmatic, or committing neccessary evils, or anything actually interesting like that and more about being a jerk for no reason.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 25 juin 2011 - 07:47 .

[onelifecrisis]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

What are the morally black options in ME2? The only one off the top of my head is picking Morinth over Samara. Leaving people to die like the sick batarian and that injured salarian is certainly heartless, but not evil.

Leaving people to die is pretty evil. But really, the problem with P/R morality in ME2 is that being a Renegade is less about being pragmatic, or committing neccessary evils, or anything actually interesting like that and more about being a jerk for no reason.

If you'd said "ME1" I would agree, but in ME2 I thought the Renegade was much improved. Sure, Reneshep is still a douchebag sometimes, but mostly he's just a consequentialist. Albeit a slightly impatient and moody one.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

onelifecrisis wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

What are the morally black options in ME2? The only one off the top of my head is picking Morinth over Samara. Leaving people to die like the sick batarian and that injured salarian is certainly heartless, but not evil.

Leaving people to die is pretty evil. But really, the problem with P/R morality in ME2 is that being a Renegade is less about being pragmatic, or committing neccessary evils, or anything actually interesting like that and more about being a jerk for no reason.

If you'd said "ME1" I would agree, but in ME2 I thought the Renegade was much improved. Sure, Reneshep is still a douchebag sometimes, but mostly he's just a consequentialist. Albeit a slightly impatient and moody one.

I think the main issue is, as someone remarked earlier, that Renegade doesn't really work as a utilitarian, because it doesn't net you any special advantages over Paragon. The main problem is that it's inconsistent. You get some stuff that is amoral and pragmatic, a lot of stuff that is just randomly being a jerk, and some stuff like this or siding with Morinth that doesn't make sense at all.

Compare it to something like Planescape: Torment - the "evil" option in that is pretty consistent. Evil!TNO is pragmatic, ruthless, genuinely cruel, and a consummate manipulator. But you don't see renegade-style random acts of jerkiness in that game (there are a couple of options to hurt people because you can, but they come across as more sociopathic than petty), and many of the evil options actually give you shortcuts or avoid sacrifices.

[HogarthHughes 3]

There are plenty of renegade decisions in ME2 that could easily be considered pragmatic: Keeping the Collector base, destroying the Heretic base (though rewriting the Geth is also pragmatic, just taking more of a risk), destroying the greybox, destroying the genophage data, letting Dr. Archer keep David, and giving Legion to Cerberus to name a few.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

There are plenty of renegade decisions in ME2 that could easily be considered pragmatic: Keeping the Collector base, destroying the Heretic base (though rewriting the Geth is also pragmatic, just taking more of a risk), destroying the greybox, destroying the genophage data, letting Dr. Archer keep David, and giving Legion to Cerberus to name a few.

The issue here is the inconsistency. Some (based on my playthrough, <10%) of the things that give you Renegade points can arguably work to your advantage in the long run. The problem is that the renegade playthrough mostly consists of small, petty acts of d*ckishness to various NPCs, a few theings that actually make sense, and several jarring acts of pointless evil. It's not a bad concept, it's just that Renegade, as it exists in the game, does not resemble the initial concept.

[HogarthHughes 3]

True it isn't always consistent, stuff like killing Vido can be hard to rationalize (perhaps killing the interstellar Warlord could save more lives in the long run somehow) but at least there is still some semblance of a pragmatic reason to go the renegade route much of the time. As for the d*ckishness, Bioware chose to give Shepard two overall personalities to choose from.  Ruthless Shepard is intended to be more confrontational and cold, I think it fits the character well enough.  Some of that random small stuff isn't as bad as it might appear though, for instance breaking the Asari/Krogan couple up could easily be seen as doing the Asari a favor.  Char (I think thats what his name is anyways) takes her to Tuchanka, which is no place for anyone other than Krogan and trained killers.  Lying to the Krogan about the Presidium fish is mean, but it does make him happy.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 25 juin 2011 - 08:37 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

True it isn't always consistent, stuff like killing Vido can be hard to rationalize (perhaps killing the interstellar Warlord could save more lives in the long run somehow) but at least there is still some semblance of a pragmatic reason to go the renegade route. As for the d*ckishness, Bioware chose to give Shepard two overall personalities to choose from. Some of that random small stuff isn't as bad as it might appear though, for instance breaking the Asari/Krogan couple up could easily be seen as doing the Asari a favor.  Char (I think thats what his name is anyways) takes her to Tuchanka, which is no place for anyone other than Krogan and trained killers.

IMO, when you compare something like Mass Effect, where the "evil" option has to be justified and still doesn't make a lot of sense, to something like Planescape: Torment with a well-implemented morality system or something like Witcher/Witcher 2 that lets you make your own choices, you can clearly see which systems help the narrative and which systems work against it.

[Nightdragon8]

IMO the systems fine in ME2 Honestly I would love a ME1 reboot with the ME2 system

I love the renagae interrupts or the paragon interrupts very very fun =) and yes my "Paragon" generlly used the Renagde interrupts.

Edit: About the aboce post han't played those games so can't comment about them.

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 25 juin 2011 - 08:41 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Perhaps the reason I'm happy with the current system is because I don't play a pure renegade. My "canon" Shepard ends up with 3 bars of paragon with 6 or 7 bars worth of renegade by the end of the game. As long as I do the missions with harder point checks earlier (Samaras LM, confrontation between Jack & Miranda, Talis LM) I never have to worry about being able to do the red or blue dialogue options. I tend to stick to one path much of the time, but the system still allows my renegade to do stuff like: Keep Legion, keep the genophage data, be nicer to the crew or companions sometimes, kill Morinth after resisting her, save the 3 or so minor npcs that are dying or about to be shot, perform most paragon interrupts (letting them pass can sometimes allow for more renegade points), turn in Pitne For to detective Anaya, and send Veetor back with Tali.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 25 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

IMO the systems fine in ME2 Honestly I would love a ME1 reboot with the ME2 system

I love the renagae interrupts or the paragon interrupts very very fun =) and yes my "Paragon" generlly used the Renagde interrupts.

Edit: About the aboce post han't played those games so can't comment about them.

The interrupts I like, since there's usually no opportunity cost. And they lead to awesome moments, like when you shoot the vase in Kasumi's mission.

[onelifecrisis]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

I think the main issue is, as someone remarked earlier, that Renegade doesn't really work as a utilitarian, because it doesn't net you any special advantages over Paragon.

Utilitarian/consequentialist and deontologist are, as I'm sure you know, types of ethics. The idea behind each of them is to provide a logical moral framework, not a benefit to the individual. An individual purely seeking personal gain/benefit is not ethical by either of those standards. A consequentialist does not think "Which of these options is best for me?" Rather, he thinks "Which of these options will provide the highest aggregate happiness?"

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 25 juin 2011 - 09:38 .

[Lumikki]

There was no charm and intimidate skills in ME2.
Paragon and Renegate path was based reputations, from players past choises.

As for opinion, I don't like charm, persuade or intimite skills at all. They are short cuts for player to metagame for wanted optimal result, lowering consequences of dialog choises and these same metaplayers are using roleplaying as excuse for it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 10:47 .

[Smeelia]

Lumikki wrote...

There was no charm and intimidate skills in ME2.
Paragon and Renegate path was based reputations, from players past choises.

It's not really presented that way in the game, Shepard has to say particular lines before the "reputation" kicks in.  If it really was a reputation system then people wouldn't need those Charm/Intimidate lines and would respond to Shepard's presence alone (or at least all Shepard would have to do is say "I'm Commander Shepard, do as I say").

[Lumikki]

Smeelia wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

There was no charm and intimidate skills in ME2.
Paragon and Renegate path was based reputations, from players past choises.

It's not really presented that way in the game, Shepard has to say particular lines before the "reputation" kicks in.  If it really was a reputation system then people wouldn't need those Charm/Intimidate lines and would respond to Shepard's presence alone (or at least all Shepard would have to do is say "I'm Commander Shepard, do as I say").

Charm lines?

2 reputation lines are ONLY in left side of dialogs. Right side of dialogs is only players TRY to say something. if reputations kicks in it is shown in left side dialog choise what will overwrite all choises in right side, if player deside to choose it. It's reputation based action.

You could think it this way too. If you are 100% paragon or 100% renegade, does the right side choises in dialog change if you don't choose reputation based actions in left side?

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 01:32 .

[Smeelia]

Lumikki wrote...

Charm lines?

2 reputation lines are ONLY in left side of dialogs. Right side of dialogs is only players TRY to say something. if reputations kicks in it is shown in left side dialog choise what will overwrite all choises in right side, if player deside to choose it. It's reputation based action.

You could think it this way too. If you are 100% paragon or 100% renegade, does the right side choises in dialog change if you don't choose reputation based actions in left side?

Well that's the point though, if it was purely reputation driven you wouldn't have a choice in whether or not the person is responding to your reputation regardless of which options you pick (either they're aware of it or they're not).  A lot of situations wouldn't even get to the point where you need to make a dialogue choice, either you have enough reputation and the person would respond appropriately or you don't and you wouldn't get the Charm/Intimidate (or, as you call them, "reputation") options.  You could argue that some choices are in whether to try and use your reputation or not but that wouldn't make sense consistently with every situation in the game.

Modifié par Smeelia, 25 juin 2011 - 02:12 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

onelifecrisis wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

I think the main issue is, as someone remarked earlier, that Renegade doesn't really work as a utilitarian, because it doesn't net you any special advantages over Paragon.

Utilitarian/consequentialist and deontologist are, as I'm sure you know, types of ethics. The idea behind each of them is to provide a logical moral framework, not a benefit to the individual. An individual purely seeking personal gain/benefit is not ethical by either of those standards. A consequentialist does not think "Which of these options is best for me?" Rather, he thinks "Which of these options will provide the highest aggregate happiness?"

Yeah, the problem described above is that Paragon ususally A) gets better outcomes from the teleological persepective, and the majority of Renegade options in conversation could generally be less accurately described as consequentialist and more described as "being a jerk for no apparent reason,"  with a few out-of-place acts of genuine evil thrown in. One of the problems with the writing for Renegade, in other words, is the inconsistency.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 25 juin 2011 - 04:18 .

[Arppis]

I hated the fact that I needed to do certain choices to be able to respond in some way. It was pretty stupid. I liked how in first game the Renegade/Paragon meters didn't really matter much. They were there just to show how you have played the game.

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

I
think the main issue is, as someone remarked earlier, that Renegade
doesn't really work as a utilitarian, because it doesn't net you any
special advantages over Paragon.

Utilitarian/consequentialist
and deontologist are, as I'm sure you know, types of ethics. The idea
behind each of them is to provide a logical moral framework, not a benefit to the individual. An individual purely seeking personal gain/benefit is not ethical by either
of those standards. A consequentialist does not think "Which of these
options is best for me?" Rather, he thinks "Which of these options will
provide the highest aggregate happiness?"

Yeah,
the problem described above is that Paragon ususally A) gets better
outcomes from the teleological persepective, and the majority of
Renegade options in conversation could generally be less accurately
described as consequentialist and more described as "being a jerk for no
apparent reason,"  with a few out-of-place acts of genuine evil thrown
in. One of the problems with the writing for Renegade, in other words,
is the inconsistency.

This is the reason why I play mostly as Paragon. Renegade just acts like idiot and the results speak for themselves, benefiting only Shepard. I guess some people like that, but Renegade options really don't give a alternative sollution I would consider in most sittulations. Paragon is usualy always the most balanced and well thought out approach that benefits everyone.

Modifié par Arppis, 25 juin 2011 - 04:24 .

[Repearized Miranda]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but it would be cool if they expected the player to think. Compare Witcher games, which have a much better system for provoking thought in that there is no clear-cut good/evil option, and often force you to choose what you think is the lesser evil. Or even something like Planescape: Torment, which has an alignment system that A) has more than one axis, and (as far as I remember) doesn't give you instant feedback along the lines of "+3 Good" for picking a particular option. The decisions in those games feel more real since you're not just making decisions to maximize an abstract number.

This is true; however, it is possible to IGNORE the numbers.

When it comes to Shepard having to diffuse arguments. The first couple of playthroughs, naturally, it's not ignored because you wanna seee what happens. After that, you really don't care and seeing how most have played multiple times, why should a thread like this even be here? (I'm just saying?) I mean, by the time you do your 200th playthrough, you shouldn't even notice the meter.

Now, just imagine if they took it away. Sure, you won't get caaught up in the red/blue thing, but as I said: Most have twisted BW's meaning of the meter. It's one thing if a child is watching you play and you explain it as "Good and Bad," but it's another to misinterpret that meaning to someone else who knows better.

I get that meta-gaming happens because it exists, but doing away with it would have its frequency increase dramatically if you think about it. While blue is not always diplomatic and red is not always pragmatic (in terms of consequence - not choice - there's a difference), you still don't know the resulting consequence. If all answers on either side of the wheel were yellow, players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one.  Then, what would BW say: "I'm sorry we made it uncomfortable. That's wasn't our intention." Sometimes, what one thinks is a good idea may not turn out to be even if intentions were good.

Sure, I'll check the Red box before playing ME3 and I'll know that I'll need X amount of points to diffuse situations accordngly, but will I let some silly meter keep me from playing? No!

If a mechanic is best ignored, that doesn't make it a very good mechanic, does it?

And I think Bioware tries to move beyond good and evil, but generally fails to do so. Jade Empire was supposed to be quasi-Confucianism vs. quasi-Nietzsche (more the theme park version of Nietzsche, but I digress) but it ended up being implemented as good vs. evil. Paragon/Renegade is supposed to be diplomacy vs. pragmatism, but it ended up as being nice vs. being a d*ck. And so on. Dragon Age: Origins was all right, but really the companions that weren't implemented as some shade of good vs. evil were in the minority.

And re: "players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one" - that's good. That means the choice mechanic was a genuine choice within the game world that actually affected the player, vs. some kind of metagamey number maximizing thing. We want games to move to a more complex and mature style of storytelling, and Witcher-style choices are better at achieving that than Fable-style choices.

If for whatever reason the game decides to implement a morality mechanic, it's best implemented as it is in Planescape: Torment. The morality system corresponds to something that actually exists in the game world, and it doesn't insult your intelligence with a "Enslaving that ghost was evil. 10 points to Slytherin!" pop-up every time you do something that affects your alignment. Also, the evil choices genuinely make sense as something a pragmatic person unconstrained by morality would do (like some of the choices in Jade Empire), as opposed to Mass Effect where the vast majority of Renegade options boil down to Shepard being a d*ck for no apparent reason.

But isn't that how it is? Again, "You can walk out of here or I can throw you out!" Either way that unwanted person is going to leave! It's be ridiculous to say Throwing somebody out is diplomatic. It could be if that's how you roll though (pragmatist). It's about how would you react to situations as diplomats can be such jerks at times, but does that suddenly make them pragmatists? No. It doesn't work the other way around either. "I'm nice, but you just pissed me the fk off, so I'll blow your head off!" or "I'm mean, but I'll let you walk away in one piece!" Now, do these sentences not contradict each other as they both accomplish the same goal. Getting that person away from you - despite the measure of maliciousness! (ie: Elnora)

[Arrow70]

implodinggoat wrote...

Presently...

In Mass Effect 3:  We have a combined system where in we need to level up our paragon or renegade bonus which keeps us guessing about how much paragon or renegade influence we need to get the dialogue options we want AND our charm and intimidate skills are based on how often we make paragon or renegade choice which forces us to focus on a particular path and encourages to make choices based not on how we feel; but upon how said choice will effect our charm and intimidate skills.

Interesting, I like how you can see into the future and can inform us of the mechanics of a game that isn't realesed yet and won't be for around nine months.

The only thing we know so far is that there is a Paragon/renegade meter, we don't know how it works in conversations yet.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but it would be cool if they expected the player to think. Compare Witcher games, which have a much better system for provoking thought in that there is no clear-cut good/evil option, and often force you to choose what you think is the lesser evil. Or even something like Planescape: Torment, which has an alignment system that A) has more than one axis, and (as far as I remember) doesn't give you instant feedback along the lines of "+3 Good" for picking a particular option. The decisions in those games feel more real since you're not just making decisions to maximize an abstract number.

This is true; however, it is possible to IGNORE the numbers.

When it comes to Shepard having to diffuse arguments. The first couple of playthroughs, naturally, it's not ignored because you wanna seee what happens. After that, you really don't care and seeing how most have played multiple times, why should a thread like this even be here? (I'm just saying?) I mean, by the time you do your 200th playthrough, you shouldn't even notice the meter.

Now, just imagine if they took it away. Sure, you won't get caaught up in the red/blue thing, but as I said: Most have twisted BW's meaning of the meter. It's one thing if a child is watching you play and you explain it as "Good and Bad," but it's another to misinterpret that meaning to someone else who knows better.

I get that meta-gaming happens because it exists, but doing away with it would have its frequency increase dramatically if you think about it. While blue is not always diplomatic and red is not always pragmatic (in terms of consequence - not choice - there's a difference), you still don't know the resulting consequence. If all answers on either side of the wheel were yellow, players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one.  Then, what would BW say: "I'm sorry we made it uncomfortable. That's wasn't our intention." Sometimes, what one thinks is a good idea may not turn out to be even if intentions were good.

Sure, I'll check the Red box before playing ME3 and I'll know that I'll need X amount of points to diffuse situations accordngly, but will I let some silly meter keep me from playing? No!

If a mechanic is best ignored, that doesn't make it a very good mechanic, does it?

And I think Bioware tries to move beyond good and evil, but generally fails to do so. Jade Empire was supposed to be quasi-Confucianism vs. quasi-Nietzsche (more the theme park version of Nietzsche, but I digress) but it ended up being implemented as good vs. evil. Paragon/Renegade is supposed to be diplomacy vs. pragmatism, but it ended up as being nice vs. being a d*ck. And so on. Dragon Age: Origins was all right, but really the companions that weren't implemented as some shade of good vs. evil were in the minority.

And re: "players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one" - that's good. That means the choice mechanic was a genuine choice within the game world that actually affected the player, vs. some kind of metagamey number maximizing thing. We want games to move to a more complex and mature style of storytelling, and Witcher-style choices are better at achieving that than Fable-style choices.

If for whatever reason the game decides to implement a morality mechanic, it's best implemented as it is in Planescape: Torment. The morality system corresponds to something that actually exists in the game world, and it doesn't insult your intelligence with a "Enslaving that ghost was evil. 10 points to Slytherin!" pop-up every time you do something that affects your alignment. Also, the evil choices genuinely make sense as something a pragmatic person unconstrained by morality would do (like some of the choices in Jade Empire), as opposed to Mass Effect where the vast majority of Renegade options boil down to Shepard being a d*ck for no apparent reason.

But isn't that how it is? Again, "You can walk out of here or I can throw you out!" Either way that unwanted person is going to leave! It's be ridiculous to say Throwing somebody out is diplomatic. It could be if that's how you roll though (pragmatist). It's about how would you react to situations as diplomats can be such jerks at times, but does that suddenly make them pragmatists? No. It doesn't work the other way around either. "I'm nice, but you just pissed me the fk off, so I'll blow your head off!" or "I'm mean, but I'll let you walk away in one piece!" Now, do these sentences not contradict each other as they both accomplish the same goal. Getting that person away from you - despite the measure of maliciousness! (ie: Elnora)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying that if you look at the developer journals Paragon/Renegade was supposed to be Picard vs. Jack Bauer, but that a lot of the writers apparently didn't get the memo.

[Raiil]

I think half of the issue would be solved if we had options to justify or explain our options; I play a renegon and one of the reasons why I don't go full renegade is because I'm not pro-humanity, and I hate how it seems that renegades are shoehorned into it. If we could clarify why, at least for some options, I think there would be a lot less heartburn.

[Repearized Miranda]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but it would be cool if they expected the player to think. Compare Witcher games, which have a much better system for provoking thought in that there is no clear-cut good/evil option, and often force you to choose what you think is the lesser evil. Or even something like Planescape: Torment, which has an alignment system that A) has more than one axis, and (as far as I remember) doesn't give you instant feedback along the lines of "+3 Good" for picking a particular option. The decisions in those games feel more real since you're not just making decisions to maximize an abstract number.

This is true; however, it is possible to IGNORE the numbers.

When it comes to Shepard having to diffuse arguments. The first couple of playthroughs, naturally, it's not ignored because you wanna seee what happens. After that, you really don't care and seeing how most have played multiple times, why should a thread like this even be here? (I'm just saying?) I mean, by the time you do your 200th playthrough, you shouldn't even notice the meter.

Now, just imagine if they took it away. Sure, you won't get caaught up in the red/blue thing, but as I said: Most have twisted BW's meaning of the meter. It's one thing if a child is watching you play and you explain it as "Good and Bad," but it's another to misinterpret that meaning to someone else who knows better.

I get that meta-gaming happens because it exists, but doing away with it would have its frequency increase dramatically if you think about it. While blue is not always diplomatic and red is not always pragmatic (in terms of consequence - not choice - there's a difference), you still don't know the resulting consequence. If all answers on either side of the wheel were yellow, players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one.  Then, what would BW say: "I'm sorry we made it uncomfortable. That's wasn't our intention." Sometimes, what one thinks is a good idea may not turn out to be even if intentions were good.

Sure, I'll check the Red box before playing ME3 and I'll know that I'll need X amount of points to diffuse situations accordngly, but will I let some silly meter keep me from playing? No!

If a mechanic is best ignored, that doesn't make it a very good mechanic, does it?

And I think Bioware tries to move beyond good and evil, but generally fails to do so. Jade Empire was supposed to be quasi-Confucianism vs. quasi-Nietzsche (more the theme park version of Nietzsche, but I digress) but it ended up being implemented as good vs. evil. Paragon/Renegade is supposed to be diplomacy vs. pragmatism, but it ended up as being nice vs. being a d*ck. And so on. Dragon Age: Origins was all right, but really the companions that weren't implemented as some shade of good vs. evil were in the minority.

And re: "players would drive themselves crazy before coming to a decision if they ever come to one" - that's good. That means the choice mechanic was a genuine choice within the game world that actually affected the player, vs. some kind of metagamey number maximizing thing. We want games to move to a more complex and mature style of storytelling, and Witcher-style choices are better at achieving that than Fable-style choices.

If for whatever reason the game decides to implement a morality mechanic, it's best implemented as it is in Planescape: Torment. The morality system corresponds to something that actually exists in the game world, and it doesn't insult your intelligence with a "Enslaving that ghost was evil. 10 points to Slytherin!" pop-up every time you do something that affects your alignment. Also, the evil choices genuinely make sense as something a pragmatic person unconstrained by morality would do (like some of the choices in Jade Empire), as opposed to Mass Effect where the vast majority of Renegade options boil down to Shepard being a d*ck for no apparent reason.

But isn't that how it is? Again, "You can walk out of here or I can throw you out!" Either way that unwanted person is going to leave! It's be ridiculous to say Throwing somebody out is diplomatic. It could be if that's how you roll though (pragmatist). It's about how would you react to situations as diplomats can be such jerks at times, but does that suddenly make them pragmatists? No. It doesn't work the other way around either. "I'm nice, but you just pissed me the fk off, so I'll blow your head off!" or "I'm mean, but I'll let you walk away in one piece!" Now, do these sentences not contradict each other as they both accomplish the same goal. Getting that person away from you - despite the measure of maliciousness! (ie: Elnora)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying that if you look at the developer journals Paragon/Renegade was supposed to be Picard vs. Jack Bauer, but that a lot of the writers apparently didn't get the memo.

In incorrect, lamens terms: Nice people aren't always such - neither are not-so-nice people.

Pragmatists don't always ignore reason while diplomats don't always heed it; however, as folks have said, that's how it's set-up, doesn't mean it's true. 

Diplomats kiss toes and ass while Pragmatists step on them and tell others to kiss theirs, but each gets the task done.

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 25 juin 2011 - 06:32 .

[Skirata129]

I agree with dave. when miranda was reaperized, she apparently lost some higher logic. lol

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

I think half of the issue would be solved if we had options to justify or explain our options; I play a renegon and one of the reasons why I don't go full renegade is because I'm not pro-humanity, and I hate how it seems that renegades are shoehorned into it. If we could clarify why, at least for some options, I think there would be a lot less heartburn.

Justfication doesn't seem to work though (Ash/Kaidan on Horizon; The Council, or even TIM), And with most renegades, they wouldn't even think about wasting their breath because you'll get the three above examples again.

Shep: I have my reasons for doing what I did!
Ash: You still betrayed the Alliance!

Note that the diplomatic choices were no matter in that situation either.

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

[Repearized Miranda]

Skirata129 wrote...

I agree with dave. when miranda was reaperized, she apparently lost some higher logic. lol

I know! Save me Shepard!!