1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Raiil]

The renegade path was never intended to be the epic doucherocket path. It was intended to be the Jack Bauer 'whatever the cost' path. Inconsistent writing has partially turned it into 'I'm Commander Shepard and I'm a Dick', but not completely.

All pure renegades are asking for is something to balance the fact that paragons get the cameos, the extra emails, and all the pats on the back, and never really get bitten on the ass for it. Sometimes right should not make might, they should 'fail' certain missions, and being the nice guy should on occasion backfire madly. Yes, it seems that saving the queen means rachni husks. You also get a rachni army. All that is is balance, in the same way that a renegade option has no rachni husks, but no rachni army as well.

As a renegon myself, I'm less likely to get shot in the face with my decisions because my big choices, with one or two exceptions, are the paragon path. I'd like to be wrong. I'd like an email telling me how horrible I am I'd like to lose something because I veered away from the mission- maybe if I let Vido go to save the people, the Blue Suns decide to try to make my life a living hell and steal supplies because he's alive to steer them, while a new leader- Zaeed or a different NPC- realises the stupidity of picking a fight and they have more to gain by allying with me.

Conversely, some renegade players aren't seeking adulation, but confirmation that sometimes the renegade choice is the 'right' choice. Or maybe a different email (I've referenced Toombs a few times as an example), even just some dialogue differences like how the shopkeepers treat you differently depending on how you play out the 'save the council, kill the council' part of the final ME1 mission. As it stands, renegade players miss out of exposition, cameos, emails, etc.

I'm not asking to make paragons rot in hell for being goody two shoes. I'm asking that there be some balance and more recognition on how renegades affect the world they live in.

And I won't get into my grumpiness about how us paragades/renegons get shot on both ends of this equation with the morality system.

[Ryzaki]

Frankly I'd love if saving the Rachni meant Shepard could save one planet, but the husks from the Rachni left another to die (and Shep could save the other planet as renegade but not the first because he doesn't have enough troops). 

Seperate but equal.

Having Wrex means the Krogan will work for free, not saving Wrex means you have to do something extra to gain Wreav's loyalty, however saving Wrex gives you better results. (I really don't see anything good about killing Wrex unless you want the Krogan to die out). Saving Wreav means less Krogan when the galaxy is saved or something. (Or he demands a cure for the genophage that you have to give him and there's another war right after the Reapers are gone.) 

Saving the Council gives you more alien aid without as much work, sacrificing them means there's more turian battleships to go around however. Maybe the turians end up being stingy and only giving Shep a certain amount of ships for Earth regardless. You get more if you save the council but you get some if you sacrificed them and did the favor. You also have more ships on earth because of some arms race between the humans and turians so the amount of ships you get even out in the end. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:48 .

[Drone223]

knightnblu wrote...

"Renegade has simply been degraded to the image of "ruthless douchebag" whose actions seem trivial and needless in the scope of the entire game because for the most part renegade usually equates to less content (with the killing of characters) and in this aspect it feels like the renegade is being punished."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't that the natural end of the renegade path? When you kill off characters they don't usually show up again unless you visit their grave. One could argue that the paragon would like to see an NPC again. It could equally be argued that the renegade got his enjoyment by terminating the NPC. Two different playing styles, two different results. Renegades also like to mess with people, but when you are nasty to people just to be contrary, your victims aren't usually inclined to do you favors later on. That's life.

Back in the day when I played pencil and paper rpg games, we called such playing styles by the labels of lawful/chaotic good and evil. The choices are made by the player because he enjoys role playing in that style. A chaotic evil character is unpredictable and liable to do anything. A lawful evil player is governed by order, but ruthless in how he goes about his business. I see renegades in much the same light.

While I certainly agree that there are times when the renegade path is most certainly the most appropriate (for example when you kill the volus' bodyguards on Garrus' loyalty mission rather than wait for them to draw down on you), the majority of the time they are inappropriate if you prefer to use diplomacy.

I realize that this is an rpg game and that people have vastly different playing styles, but if you like to play the bad boy/girl, then you have to pay for it. Likewise, choices made by paragons sometimes make their game a bit more difficult. As an example, when you are interrogating the human on Thane's loyalty mission the renegade can get the information in a heartbeat, but the paragon has to work a lot harder to get the same results, yet I hear no renegades complaining about that.

By advocating that the "goody two shoes" player suffer because they were not nasty pieces of work is wrong in my opinion. By so doing, you are advocating the demise of the morality system of the game and thereby gutting it. I have seen many of these threads and they are all very similar in that the renegade players don't regret the choices they made, but instead want to punish the players who did not make those choices so that they can feel better about their play style. In my opinion that's petty, but this is what the renegades call fair. There is an old saying that describes this state of affairs perfectly: You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I would argue that it cannot be known whose play style is optimal because nobody knows the story of ME3, but BioWare. It may be that the renegade path was the hands down best play style and the paragons have their work cut out for them. My advice is to play the way you want to play the game and get the most enjoyment out of the Mass Effect series that you can and let the chips fall where they may. You spent your hard earned coin and you should get as much entertainment out of it as you can and view any differences as a unique challenge for your playing style. Ultimately, I believe that regardless of paragon or renegade preference, we will all face difficult challenges in spite of our playing style in ME3.

^This

[Patchwork]

I've never gave the Collector base to Cerberus but I do think its one of the renegade decision that should pay off. Paragons gets the rachni so renegades gets the attack eye thingies?

I know Cerberus and TIM turn on Shep in ME3 but some technology could have been received before that happens.

I'm not for punishing paragons for the sake of it but trusting in the goodness of people like Helena Blake should come back to bite them sometimes. That's the inherent risk of trusting people.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Paragon should not be the "win" button of the Mass Effect series like they have been for the past 2 games... it destroys the point of making tough choices.

Renegade decisions should occasionally be more beneficial than the Paragon decisions... otherwise what really makes a choice difficult to make?

If (no matter the stakes or circumstance) hitting the blue button gives you the most lives saved, the most praise, the most content, and no negative consequences compared to the Renegade alternative... why would you even have to think about a choice?

I had a long discussion about this in the Mass Effect 2 forums and the favoritism the game gives to Paragon decisions over the Renegade ones are pretty surprising.

Whether Bioware just ran out of time before giving Renegade outcomes equivalent content or there wasn't enough budget left to 'equalize' the choices, here's hoping that it doesn't continue with Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:15 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Paragon should not be the "win" button of the Mass Effect series like they have been for the past 2 games... it destroys the point of making tough choices.

Renegade decisions should occasionally be more beneficial than the Paragon decisions... otherwise what really makes a choice difficult to make?

If (no matter the stakes or circumstance) hitting the blue button gives you the most lives saved, the most praise, the most content, and no negative consequences compared to the Renegade alternative... why would you even have to think about a choice?

I had a long discussion about this in the Mass Effect 2 forums and the favoritism the game gives to Paragon decisions over the Renegade ones are pretty surprising.

Whether Bioware just ran out of time before giving Renegade outcomes equivalent content or there wasn't enough budget left to 'equalize' the choices, here's hoping that it doesn't continue with Mass Effect 3.

I would say that's but one of the major reasons for such lopsided outcomes, the others would be that actual player choice would conflict with the "epic story" they want to tell and the desire to create spin offs (especially an MMO).

It's incredible but Dragon Age Origins has more real player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire Mass Effect franchise.

[Lumikki]

I don't get it, why someone thinks playing paragon, neutral or renegade would deside the result of War? They are just characters attitude (morality) as how to deal situations. If you mean that some attitude (morale) can make it easyer or harder, of course it can, because that's what it's all about. Game simulates the attitude's consequences.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:43 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

The OP isn't referring to absolute victory... but victory in the sense of the most positive outcomes have been coming exclusively from Paragon decisions.

The first 2 games presented no real upside to making a choice other than the Paragon one... no content positively validates the choice over the Paragon alternative. In addition, there's less content and apparently absolutely no one 'gets' why a non Paragon decision was made (just negative).  No real payoff is given for making a choice other than the Paragon decision either (you don't see the new Council for example).  On the flip side, Paragon decisions get no real negatives presented for the choices that they make...

Such favoritism shouldn't be... and I hope they notice and correct it for Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:10 .

[Lumikki]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

The OP isn't referring to absolute victory... but victory in the sense of the most positive outcomes have been coming exclusively from Paragon decisions.

Paragon -> diplomatic, nice guy
Renegade -> kill them all, bad ass

Of course most of the positive outcomes are in paragon side. What good can come from been bad ass, it's negative path.

Such favoritism shouldn't be... and I hope they notice and correct it for Mass Effect 3.

It's not favorism, it's about consequences of your actions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:18 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Lumikki wrote...
Paragon -> diplomatic, nice guy
Renegade -> kill them all, bad ass

Of course most of the positive outcomes are in paragon side. What good can come from been bad ass, it's negative path.

Only because they wrote it that way.  Jack Bauer was "right" many times and yielded positive results over more diplomatic methods many times.  There was also content to show it.

It's not favorism, it's about consequences of your actions.

The consequences show favoritism to the Paragon choices.

ex)  If there wasn't enough time to save the Ascension (for example) before Sovereign retook the Citadel or too many forces were lost in the attempt... that could've been a consequence not favoring the Paragon decision.


The main question being... with that favoritism in mind... why would someone (who wants to make the choice that saves the most lives, provides the most content, and results in the most positive validation) not pick the Paragon decision?  What choice is really there at that point?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[Massadonious1]

If favoritism is having an NPC around to interact with that isn't dead, then yeah, I suppose that is favoritism.

Maybe we should have Cerberus breed another Rachni queen so you can flush her again.

[Ryzaki]

Frankly I'm sick of renegades getting easier battles. That needs to go for Paragons as well.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I can keep going regarding Paragon favoritism Massadonious1...

The Collector Base decision, squadmates that were against destroying the base before you make the choice all unanimously support the Paragon decisions afterwards. They praise the Paragon choice and look down on the Renegade choice.

[ThePwener]

Paragon=Destroy Collector Base

I think this will be very bad at some point in ME3

[Lumikki]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Paragon -> diplomatic, nice guy
Renegade -> kill them all, bad ass

Of course most of the positive outcomes are in paragon side. What good can come from been bad ass, it's negative path.

Only because they wrote it that way.  Jack Bauer was "right" many times and there was content to show it.

Just because he is right in the end, doesn't mean it was positive what he did to get there.
Try to remember where was Jack Bauer is beging of season 7 and why he was there?
Was it positive result? Jack Bauer only get away from his actions, because in end he saved a lot of people. But his action while doing it was never positive. The end result was maybe postive, like win the war, but it was asked by others in what cost.

It's not favorism, it's about consequences of your actions.

The consequences show favoritism to the Paragon choices.

If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:34 .

[Ryzaki]

I'm not sure giving Derperus anything dangerous is a good idea. The CBis one decision I don't mind blowing up in renegade's faces (actually BLOWING UP in their face and not the "OMG I DIDN'T GET CAMEO!" stuff). Just like rewriting the Geth should blow up in Paragon's faces. 

From my perspective choices that should blow up in Sheps face regardless of alignment 
- Wrex being killed
- Rachni being saved
- Giving CB to Cerberus
- Letting Elnora live
- Rewriting Geth
- Exposing Tali's father
- Killing the Council
- Giving the soldier's body to the husband
- a few more that I can't recall

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:38 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

ThePwener, that'd be nice... and a first... an upside to a choice other than the Paragon ones... unless of course the Renegade choice results in something even worse.

[Massadonious1]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I can keep going regarding Paragon favoritism Massadonious1...

The Collector Base decision, squadmates that were against destroying the base before you make the choice all unanimously support the Paragon decisions afterwards.

The former I chalk up to wonky conversation mechanics, the latter I attribute to characters exhibiting their own personality. Do you really think someone like Jack would be cool with you keeping it?

And I have to question your dedication to the cause if you're going to let popular opinion sway you from doing the "right thing"

Modifié par Massadonious1, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:36 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Lumikki wrote...
Just because he is right in the end, doesn't mean it was positive what he did to get there.
Try to remember where was Jack Bauer in beging of season 7 and why he was there?
Was it positive result? Jack Bauer only get away from his actions, because in end he saved a lot of people. But his action while doing it was never positive. The end result was maybe postive, like win the war, but it was asked by others in what cost.

 
The loss of life would've been a lot greater of Jack didn't do the things he did.  They even showed how the politically correct proceedure did not work in every scenario.  Now back to Mass Effect... you could argue a bad public response, but the Renegade choices don't provide a real positive benefit 'at all' over the Paragon choice.

If a sacrifice was made to save more lives... that'd be one thing... but the Renegade choices doesn't even get that. 

If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

Because Renegade choices aren't all negative action... sometimes they're just aggressive... willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Problem there though is that the Paragon choice has proven that such sacrifices don't lead to any greater good across the first 2 games.  All Renegade alternative choices thusfar have proven to be completely unnecessary.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:41 .

[marshalleck]

Lumikki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Paragon -> diplomatic, nice guy
Renegade -> kill them all, bad ass

Of course most of the positive outcomes are in paragon side. What good can come from been bad ass, it's negative path.

Only because they wrote it that way.  Jack Bauer was "right" many times and there was content to show it.

Just because he is right in the end, doesn't mean it was positive what he did to get there.
Try to remember where was Jack Bauer is beging of season 7 and why he was there?
Was it positive result? Jack Bauer only get away from his actions, because in end he saved a lot of people. But his action while doing it was never positive. The end result was maybe postive, like win the war, but it was asked by others in what cost.

It's not favorism, it's about consequences of your actions.

The consequences show favoritism to the Paragon choices.

If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

And yet another person simply failing to grasp the actual complaint here.

Negative consequences are fine. The problem is, many Renegade decisions lack even that. There are no consequences. They become black holes of nothing, never again invoked in any way, as if the decision never happened.

Modifié par marshalleck, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:42 .

[Jebel Krong]

Lumikki wrote...
If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

where do you get renegade = negative? take re-writing the geth: that one could easily come back and bite you later, by far the safer option was to kill the heretics, safeguarding both of you in the future.

quite often killing a potential threat could save you a lot of aggro down the line... in many ways it's the cleaner, faster and most efficient solution (even if this is portrayed somewhat clumsily sometimes in-game so you sound like a douche). paragons should get just as many negative consequences as renegades if the game is balanced realistically.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:45 .

[Seboist]

marshalleck wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Paragon -> diplomatic, nice guy
Renegade -> kill them all, bad ass

Of course most of the positive outcomes are in paragon side. What good can come from been bad ass, it's negative path.

Only because they wrote it that way.  Jack Bauer was "right" many times and there was content to show it.

Just because he is right in the end, doesn't mean it was positive what he did to get there.
Try to remember where was Jack Bauer is beging of season 7 and why he was there?
Was it positive result? Jack Bauer only get away from his actions, because in end he saved a lot of people. But his action while doing it was never positive. The end result was maybe postive, like win the war, but it was asked by others in what cost.

It's not favorism, it's about consequences of your actions.

The consequences show favoritism to the Paragon choices.

If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

And yet another person simply failing to grasp the actual complaint here.

Negative consequences are fine. The problem is, many Renegade decisions lack even that. There are no consequences. They become black holes of nothing, never again invoked in any way, as if the decision never happened.

Yeah, like with killing Helena Blake and Fist,does crime go down? Does another gang or crimelord take their place? Does ANYTHING happen? According to ME2 there's just nothing.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Massadonious1 wrote...
The former I chalk up to wonky conversation mechanics, the latter I attribute to characters exhibiting their own personality. Do you really think someone like Jack would be cool with you keeping it?

And I have to question your dedication to the cause if you're going to let popular opinion sway you from doing the "right thing"

There's nothing wrong with mixed opinions... favoritism comes in when the opinion is unanimous... even in the face of what they said just minutes before:

Garrus: I don't know, Shepard. What happened here was horrible, but we have to stop the Reapers. If we destroy this base, then all these people died for nothing.

Grunt: He's right. When your enemy gives you a weapon, you use it. You might not get another chance.

Legion: Shepard-Commander, this facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others.

Mordin: Hmm... Agreed. Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity.

Zaeed: Someone gives you a weapon, you don't complain that it's dirty - you use it.

My dedication has nothing to do with the issue at hand... which is Paragon favoritism... and the notion that the game itself (not just squadmates) doesn't illustrate a single Renegade choice as being "the right thing" over the Paragon one.

That's a problem... and the notion of a "tough choice" is severely deflated because of it... since Blue always saves the most lives without compromising the objective... while also granting the most content, cameos, and positive validation.  It's not just one thing... it's all of them.

[Lumikki]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

where do you get renegade = negative? take re-writing the geth: that one could easily come back and bite you later, by far the safer option was to kill the heretics, safeguarding both of you in the future.

I never sayed that postive action can't bite in you ass or that negaive action can't have postive result.
I say most the time postive leads in postive result and most the time negative leads in negative result.

Killing other person is ALLWAYS negative, even when it saves 1 000 000 000 000 000 people. It's not the result that defines it, but the action it self.

marshalleck wrote...

And yet another person simply failing to grasp the actual complaint here.

Negative consequences are fine. The problem is, many Renegade decisions lack  even that. There are no consequences. They become black holes of  nothing, never again invoked in any way, as if the decision never
happened.

Yeah, but I was not talking general lack of consequences issue. I was talking that negative consequences would means positive results in consequences. While it happens sometimes, most the time same type of action, leads in same kind of consequences. If there is not enough consequences in any kind of action, then that's totally different issue.

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

If you do negative action why it's not fine to have negative consequences?

Because Renegade choices aren't all negative action... sometimes they're just aggressive... willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Problem there though is that the Paragon choice has proven that such sacrifices don't lead to any greater good across the first 2 games.  All Renegade  alternative choices thusfar have proven to be completely unnecessary.

Like above I never sayed that no good can come from negative action, I say, usually it doesn't happen. Like sometimes positive action can have negative result, but usually that doesn't happen. This isn't some 50/50 situation.

Paragon, renegade or neutral, they all allways lead in same end result in all Biowares games. If you haven't yet noticed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:59 .