1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Repearized Miranda]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
Then, they may need to fix that for other games as well because they could be interpreted the same way. (No slighting BW, just makng a point)

I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly how it's still determined though. (Again, not a slight) Just an easy perception to make.

Then perhaps future games will allow for the real "tough choices" without having a go-to button to rely on for the most positive outcome.

It even deflates the notion of comparing choices made because of knowing how Bioware writes. 

"I got to this part of the game and had to choose between the most positive outcome or something worse (which additionally may lead to less content, less cameos, and less positive validation)"

The last part gets me though.

Why would (Renegade) Shepard or such from other games, need validation? That's already thrown out the window since those characters don't "kiss-ass!" I'm talking about such from the people who don't feel such a character shouldn't be validated.

Female Shepard wouldn't want the Alliance/Council's gratitude after having saved them because of their asswipe like demeanor. It'd be fun seeing them kiss her ass for a change, but she doesn't give a flip what they do. She did her damn job! That is validation enough!

While the Paragon would obviously get the admiration of everyone and become head of everything, just because she would get more than her renegade counterpart, doesn't nor should it devalue her counterpart (player wise).

Renegades are no less mportant than Paragons nor are Paragons more important than Renegades.

If BW is clearly biased towards Paragon, why not just have that portion of the meter only?

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...
It's pretty simplistic to say 'the ends never justify the means' imo. Maybe in fairytale's that's a good lesson, but I don't think real life is that 'simple,' even if it is a nice thing to aspire too. If ME wants to be treated as some sort of adult tale of morality at least, then I think it behooves them to make writing decisions that sort of gives some sort of measured pay-off between the too philosophies.

Maybe paragons might give you the reward of more support;
Maybe Renegades might give you the reward of high technology;

Maybe a mix of the philosophies might net you a blend of those two rewards, but it might be skewed to one result over another.

I woud like to see such a mix of pay-offs. Then I'd be curious about the different outcomes rather than apprehensive.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Apparently arguments must be repeated or people will conveniently forget they exist. So here we go again:

(1) Paragons appear to get the better victories
Paragon favoritism is not a matter of win vs. no-win. Everyone knows Renegades can also "win". Or rather we don't really know yet, but we suspect with some justification that they will be able to win. The problem is rather that Paragons are likely to get the "better victory" on several counts - less loss of lives, less unpleasant side effects, more people who like you etc. etc. 

(2) The outcomes of Paragon and Renegade decisions are globally unbalanced, content-wise and story-wise.
So far, it is a plain fact, obvious for everyone to see, that with one inconsequential exception, there are no Renegade options that have resulted in a better outcome than their corresponding Paragon options, while there have been plenty of Paragon options with better outcomes. Either in content, or in storyline consequences. Most of time, in both.

(3) These two points invalidate Renegade options on three counts:
(3a) It's totally unlike how things work in any reasonably realistic world. "Being nice always results in the best" is a concept out of bowdlerized fairytales. For those players who follow the real-world evidence and do not subscribe to the just world fallacy, this makes the *complete* story unbelievable from the start to the end.
(3b) The Renegade school of thought is supposed to be "results at all costs" - i.e. being Renegade is about getting better results than Paragons can get because they're limited by their principles. If Renegade decisions don't get these better results at least some of the time, the whole school of thought is invalidated in-world. If being nice actually did always result in the best, Renegade decisions would never be made by anyone in this universe but by sociopathic jerks.
(3c) For a more game-ish look at things: if decisions with possible consequences in the games are to be seen as justified, they must be validated within the games. So far, in the overwhelming majority of decisions, only Paragon options are validated. By emails, by additional meetings with NPCs etc.. This in spite of the fact that Renegade options need such validation more than Paragon options, because for the Renegade options, the bad side effects are always obvious. So Renegades lose on two counts: not only are positive consequences of their decisions never shown, while the negative ones are always obvious, but since for Paragons the positive is always obvious, they get an additional validation by the fact that any negative side effects of their decisions are never shown. Dealing with Balak in ME1 is the prime example: Paragons never hear of any further acts of terrorism by Balak after they let him go, AND they get a mail from Kate Bowman. Paragons are validated on two counts. Renegades not only get no e-mail telling them, for instance, of the discovery of Balak's future plans they have prevented by killing him, no, in addition they are also reminded that Kate Bowman has died. Renegades fail to be validated on two counts.

I find the apparent consequences of the Collector base decision most annoying of all: It appears to me that Bioware went out of their way to compromise Cerberus' "advancement and protection of humanity" ideology for no better reason than to give overwhelming validation to the decision to destroy the base. 

//nods

Though I'd also argue that Elnora was not a negative for Paragons... I actually can't think of a single time where a Renegade choice provided an outcome superior to the Paragon choice.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Repearized Miranda wrote...
The last part gets me though.

Why would (Renegade) Shepard or such from other games, need validation? That's already thrown out the window since those characters don't "kiss-ass!" I'm talking about such from the people who don't feel such a character shouldn't be validated.

Female Shepard wouldn't want the Alliance/Council's gratitude after having saved them because of their asswipe like demeanor. It'd be fun seeing them kiss her ass for a change, but she doesn't give a flip what they do. She did her damn job! That is validation enough!

While the Paragon would obviously get the admiration of everyone and become head of everything, just because she would get more than her renegade counterpart, doesn't nor should it devalue her counterpart (player wise).

Renegades are no less mportant than Paragons nor are Paragons more important than Renegades.

If BW is clearly biased towards Paragon, why not just have that portion of the meter only?

To ask that question implies that you're not realizing the meaning of validation. The validation isn't for the game character, it's for the player.

No one has to literally thank Shepard... but they could display the impact of the choice in a positive light (negative too is fine... but not exclusively) with actual exclusive content like the Paragon equivalent has. 

Additionally, a Renegade choice could actually lead to a more positive result than the Paragon one once in a while.  Have some balance in the force... and a reason to think about which choice to make in your quest for the most positive turn of events. 

Further still, a Renegade choice could be made in a universe where those who favored it continue to do so after the choice is made.  That's just being realistic.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I woud like to see such a mix of pay-offs. Then I'd be curious about the different outcomes rather than apprehensive.

Agreed, the apprehension is coming from the clear lack of balance and 'care' shown to all choices made.

I know that sounds harsh and I know it could very well have stemmed from budget or time issues, etc.  But I'd really appreciate this part of the game being fixed.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:07 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
So, I take it Renegade = "most negative choice" while neutral is ...

I want an apple
I don't care for neither
I want an orange

How is choosing the apple most positive than choosing the orange, besides, I like apples better with the inverse also being true?

The neutral answer could mean: "I do like both, but I don't care for either at this particular time." This says that you could pick up either (or perhaps both) later.

As for the roleplaying, why don't people who wanna do that just flip-flop between such choices since "neutral = nothing" apparently. I wouldn't disagree as many don't pick such options. That would be very fustrating, but you'd get what you want apparently.

Renegade generally = the "most gimped choice" while neutral is the Renegade choice.

Whether you Concentrate on Sovereign or Let the Council Die, you're met with the same scenario in Mass Effect 2.  Nothing changes.  And the neutral choice is "I don't want the Council to die, but the galaxy (and the lives of everyone in it... including the Council) comes first."

It's not really an apple/orange choice.  You either feel the Council has time to be saved (or that all life in the galaxy is not worth anything if those specific Council members fall)... or You feel that the Council will have to wait because the galaxy's at stake (or that they aren't worth saving in the face of galactic extinction).

It turns out that there's plenty of time to save the Council... and focusing on Sovereign doesn't save any more lives or better your chances at defeating Sovereign.  The Paragon choice not only saves the Council, but loses less lives than the Renegade alternative to remove the threat of Sovereign.

And the point is wanting choices with weight.  No choice should equal "nothing."  That's the problem.

The save the council decision is the ultimate "have your cake and eat it" outcome. Shepard gets to destroy Sovereign with minimal losses, and the Alliance brass nor the people back home don't seem to care at all that s/he sacrificed human lives to save Alien bureaucrats while the galaxy's survival was at stake. There's no sign the Alliance is militarily weaker either.

[Repearized Miranda]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

//nods

Though I'd also argue that Elnora was not a negative for Paragons... I actually can't think of a single time where a Renegade choice provided an outcome superior to the Paragon choice.

So, wait! Klling Elnora was wrong? Yeah, she killed somebody, but I stopped her from klling more people. There's got to be some good in that (not in blue points either)

Keeping the base is wrong? But it keeps TIM & Cerberus off my ass for awhile. Besides, who really knows what TIM will do? We just know that he's pissed if you blew it up.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Repearized Miranda wrote...
So, wait! Klling Elnora was wrong? Yeah, she killed somebody, but I stopped her from klling more people. There's got to be some good in that (not in blue points either)

Keeping the base is wrong? But it keeps TIM & Cerberus off my ass for awhile. Besides, who really knows what TIM will do? We just know that he's pissed if you blew it up.

Killing Elnora provides no demonstrated benefit.  She doesn't kill more people as far as the game is concerned and she's being hunted by the law... just like Balak.

Cerberus is said to be against Shepard no matter what and we heard that right out of the gate as far as the plot is concerned.  Jacob (if you destroy the base) also makes it very clear that Cerberus would be coming after Shepard.

That's why I was saying that even the premise of Cerberus in Mass Effect 3 wraps around the Paragon decision... because you know ahead of time that Cerberus would be an enemy out of the gate.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:25 .

[Ieldra]

Ah....and while I'm at it: I'd like to remind the Paragon moralists here of one thing:

We who make Renegade decisions do not make them because we like to be callous jerks. We make them because we think the good resulting from them down the road will outweigh the immediate good that will be gained by the Paragon alternative.

We let the council die because we will not risk the whole galaxy for them.
We kill the Rachni queen because we will not risk her turning into an enemy when we can least afford it.
We keep the Collector base because we think it's more important to fight the Reapers than to fight Cerberus.

It's not a matter of doing good or evil. It's a matter of setting priorities in doing good. The greater good outweighs the minor, no matter that the latter is in front of your eyes. And never does it mean that we don't care.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:17 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ah....and while I'm at it: I'd like to remind the Paragon moralists here of one thing:

We who make Renegade decisions do not make them because we like to be callous jerks. We make them because we think the good resulting from them down the road will outweigh the immediate good that will be gained by the Paragon alternative.

We let the council die because we will not risk the whole galaxy for them.
We kill the Rachni queen because we will not risk her turning into an enemy when we can least afford it.
We keep the Collector base because we think it's more important to fight the Reapers than to fight Cerberus.

It's not a matter of doing good or evil. It's a matter of setting priorities in doing good. The greater good outweighs the minor, no matter that the latter is in front of your eyes. And never does it mean that we don't care.

Another QFT

[Repearized Miranda]

^ This

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Being a jerk can be fun, but that's what a Renegade does on his off hours... during times where nothing important is going on.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:21 .

[Nightdragon8]

i think what will happen is that you can still win the game no matter what choices you make, you just will get different results. Depending on the choices more of one speices will die and what not. And in reality so what if Balak or Elnoia was killed or not, they aren't he Shepards of the galaxy. I really don't think they are going to make a serious dent or even come after Shep later

The real problem is that WE do not know, Bioware will do whatever they want to the game's story. Really a Renagade Shep really wont be that much different than a Paragon Shep, "in the grand scheme of things"

I think the only really big ones would be Rachni queen, and collector base. If that.

[Majin Paul]

I don't think making one win and one lose is a good way to go, either way you'd be making a lot of players unhappy, it should be win/lose for both, just that paragon and renegade have different ways of winning/losing.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I wonder if Renegade/Neutrals will get a Council this time...

And yeah, no one's saying the Paragons should lose... the OP didn't make an accurate title for what his intention was.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:30 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I wonder if Renegade/Neutrals will get a Council this time...

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'd be impressed if you could, Seboist. Still a good seven monthes or so...

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I wonder if Renegade/Neutrals will get a Council this time...

I wouldn't hold my breath.

That'd be a shame if they're not there after all this time... Someone should twitter Casey about some of this stuff...

[GodWood]

Majin Paul wrote...
I don't think making one win and one lose is a good way to go, either way you'd be making a lot of players unhappy, it should be win/lose for both, just that paragon and renegade have different ways of winning/losing

People are not asking for one side to lose and one side to win.
They're asking for some paragon choices to have negative consequences and some renegade choices have positive consequences so in the end each alignment gets equal treatment and the choices have actual weight behind them.

Instead what we've got at the moment is:
Paragon = always positive consequences + more content.
Renegade = always negative consequences with less content.

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'd be impressed if you could, Seboist. Still a good seven monthes or so...

You doubting my ability brah? A real man like myself doesn't need air.

[CannotCompute]

GodWood wrote...

People are not asking for one side to lose and one side to win.
They're asking for some paragon choices to have negative consequences and some renegade choices have positive consequences so in the end each alignment gets equal treatment and the choices have actual weight behind them.

Instead what we've got at the moment is:
Paragon = always positive consequences + more content.
Renegade = always negative consequences with less content.

Agreed, fully and heartily.

[Seboist]

GodWood wrote...

Majin Paul wrote...
I don't think making one win and one lose is a good way to go, either way you'd be making a lot of players unhappy, it should be win/lose for both, just that paragon and renegade have different ways of winning/losing

People are not asking for one side to lose and one side to win.
They're asking for some paragon choices to have negative consequences and some renegade choices have positive consequences so in the end each alignment gets equal treatment and the choices have actual weight behind them.

Instead what we've got at the moment is:
Paragon = always positive consequences + more content.
Renegade = always negative consequences with less content.

I would say the ideal scenario is for each decision to have both negative and positive outcomes as to prevent meta-gaming and to leave it up to the player decide which is the "better' outcome.

[Candidate 88766]

GodWood wrote...
Renegade = always negative consequences with less content.

Lolwut.

Paragon - strengthening all galactic races a bit.
Renegade - strengthening Cerberus/humanity a lot. If you went full renegade, Cerberus has the Collector Base, Project Overlord and Legion. Cerberus has Reaper technology and complete power over the Geth. Thats far more powerful than any Paragon faction. Yes, part of Cerberus is after Shepard in ME3 but that makes this more likely to be successful. Your squadmates disapprove of you keeping the Base. Now part of Cerberus is trying to kill you. If you can look past that and still trust Cerberus, I very much doubt Bioware will punish you with failure. If anything they're more likely to grant you success for sticking to your guns and supporting Cerberus - the only faction really willing to do something against the Reapers - despite everything they've thrown at you.

Besides, how can you say 'always negative consquences' when we haven't had any consequences yet? Unless you mean people not liking you as much, which is acceptable because the renegade decisions normally involve killing something or doing something that is morally questionable.

[GodWood]

Seboist wrote...
I would say the ideal scenario is for each decision to have both negative and positive outcomes as to prevent meta-gaming and to leave it up to the player decide which is the "better' outcome.

Indeed.

An example being:
Letting the Council die results in a bigger army in the Reaper war with less casualties but a 'less stable', human dominated galaxy afterwards.
Where as Saving the Council results in a smaller army and more casualties but a united 'stable' galaxy afterwards.

Or something to that effect.

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Lolwut.

Paragon - strengthening all galactic races a bit.
Renegade - strengthening Cerberus/humanity a lot. If you went full renegade, Cerberus has the Collector Base, Project Overlord and Legion.

Legion escapes.
And to save me a lot of effort read the thread/Gogeta's posts.

Modifié par GodWood, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:52 .