1768 réponses à ce sujet

[byzantine horse]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

In all fairness Renegade isn't really evil at all. Being a dick, no matter how severe of a dick you may be, does not make you evil.

True, my point was simply that the spectrum shouldn't be black and white, and Paragon is usually so white that whatever shade of grey Renegade ends up with is black in comparison. I would just like to see a more "balanced" approach towards morals, and even if we see it here and there sometimes Renegade Shep is still the biggest dick around most of the time and Paragon is all rainbows and unicorns.

Now I haven't played Arrival (as mentioned by some it is alot better in that regard) but generally Paragon Shep is rewarded more for being plain nice to others. Mercy is first on his list of vegetables he eats for breakfast, basically. Why can't Paragon be honorable more than just "nice"? Honor would for example bind you to abide laws (think a lawful good paladin in DnD) and perform actions that might not be nice per say, for example executing that villain who has found out some really cool weapon to kill Reapers with (but in the meantime obliterated a city or whatever) would be what you should do as a Paragon. In Mass Effect we oftenmost see the opposite happen which is contradictory imo. Here the Paragon is merciful for no apparent reason and lets the villain be alive, getting the weapon on top of it all, while the Renegade (who should be the one seeing the usefulness of the villain) kills him instead out of spite or douchebaggery. Which isn't by any means the way it should be.

[Ieldra]

byzantine horse wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...
In all fairness Renegade isn't really evil at all. Being a dick, no matter how severe of a dick you may be, does not make you evil.

True, my point was simply that the spectrum shouldn't be black and white, and Paragon is usually so white that whatever shade of grey Renegade ends up with is black in comparison. I would just like to see a more "balanced" approach towards morals, and even if we see it here and there sometimes Renegade Shep is still the biggest dick around most of the time and Paragon is all rainbows and unicorns.

Thank you. Sometime it's a relief to see one's own opinion expressed in plain words. We tend to get lost in the intricacies of our own arguments.

[KevShep]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

I will sum it all up. The ends never justify the means.......ever!.....They never have! Sometimes the ends justify the means is a whole lot of fun and...THAT... is the payoff for renegades, so if you dont want to sacrifice anything in order to have fun then dont play as a renegade. And if you want to have fun as a renegade then dont complain when you have to sacrifice something to save the galaxy.

The ends never justify the means?  Then why did Shepard kill all of those Batarians in the Arrival DLC?  The ends do justify the means... it just depends on whether Bioware writes them there or not.

The Renegade choices aren't about "fun"... the Interrupts are though, lol. 

what Iam saying is that killing all those batarians in arrival did not end well ether. Shepard now has to anwser for that and gets nowhere in making it count. The batarians will then start an unneeded war that could make the war with the reapers a lot harder. Earth is screwed no matter what anyway. Dam*ed if you do dam*ed if you dont.

So my statment is still true because even destroying the relay does not get you the ends to the actions you were trying to justify. The end did not justify the means and this would have been true in real life. If you killed the batarians in real life do you think that anymore would then get a sh*t what you say? It would be harder to convience them to leave earth before the invasion.

[Lumikki]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That would've been less of a problem if they'd told me in advance "If you play Renegade, you'll have a much harder time".

Of course if you play renegade you gonna have harder time, it's nature been renegade. You "kill" all you allies, while paragon gathers them as friend.

But in fact they told me "Renegade and Paragon are equal paths to victory". Which they aren't.

What you understand in this case "equal"? Because it's meaning can be assumed many ways. Example that all paragon, neutral and renegade goes same equal path to victory as it's just one story, only diffrence is the attitude you choosed for you character.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:23 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The problem is that the game lets me play a Renegade but never validates Renegade decisions. That would've been less of a problem if they'd told me in advance "If you play Renegade, you'll have a much harder time". But in fact they told me "Renegade and Paragon are equal paths to victory". Which they aren't. Both have have the same potential for drama, yes, but that's irrevelant. By the in-game measure of succcess, they aren't equal. That is most definitely not a subjective standard.

The goal of the story is to defeat the Reapers, that's still happening.  The goals of the game are similarly met regardless of choices.  Circumstances may be different but the main paths through the story lead to success.

Renegades don't have a "harder time" of winning (you could argue they have an easier time but it's a minor difference), they may take less risks and go for the "expedient" rather than "moral" approach but that doesn't give a "worse" outcome and they still win in the end.

The problem isn't with the game, it's with your interpretation of the "goals" and the way you feel things were presented and those are matters of opinion.

Anyway, having "uneven" stories in the game isn't proof of any "bias".  I like the "gritty" story that a Renegade focussed character experiences, there's nothing "wrong" with it.

If you have a quote from the developers that says both Paragons and Renegades will get exactly the same outcomes then I might be willing to believe you've been deceived.  As it stands, you're relying on your own interpretation of something to prove that it's not just your opinion (and you're failing to see the flaw in that).

byzantine horse wrote...

True, my point was simply that the spectrum shouldn't be black and white, and Paragon is usually so white that whatever shade of grey Renegade ends up with is black in comparison. I would just like to see a more "balanced" approach towards morals, and even if we see it here and there sometimes Renegade Shep is still the biggest dick around most of the time and Paragon is all rainbows and unicorns.

Overall, I'm not really convinced this is as true as some people suggest.  There is the odd occasion where Shepard is excessively nice or excessively evil but generally speaking most decisions can be reasonably justified either way.  Shepard can reform a criminal (Helena Blake) as either Renegade or Paragon, saving the Council can be a "tactical" choice (similar for destroying the base) and there are plenty of reasons for each decision.  A lot of players don't go exclusively to one side or the other and they're free to do that (or not) and make their character their own.

Most criminals that Shepard shows mercy to are ultimately arrested (particularly in ME1) so it's not like they're all getting away and turning into lovely people or something.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Shadow Broker Dossier on Legion implies it.

No it doesn't.

Intercepted message to the Illusive Man from a remote lab team engaged in dismantling geth recovered from inside derelict Reaper:
Sir,
The dismantling of the recovered geth body is on schedule. The security prototyped during Project Overlord is in place, although we won't risk full activation until we strip out all nonessential electronics from the lab.

Our security officer doubled the guards since we received that report of the breakout on the quarian flotilla(1), but I'm confident we've learned from the aliens' mistakes.

Further reports forthcoming, Dr. KamilAssistant Project Manager
(1) Cross-reference: Footage of the last three hours of active service of the quarian research vessel Alarei.Partial transcript from the dismantling of the geth recovered by Cerberus from inside derelict Reaper:

Dr. Kamil: Amazing it lasted this long.

Dr. West: Geth are adept at self-repair. Hand me the cutters. No, the ones with the red handle.

K: Do you think it could be reactivated?

W: I don't see why not.

K: Its parts are spread across half this lab!

W: If we took it apart, we can put it together again. That is assuming we haven't damaged anything crucial with the
modific-- Wait, what are you doing?

K: I'm sorry?

W: That data pad, you idiot! What are you doing with a wireless device beside a geth!

K: It's only the local intranet, I'm just cataloguing the parts we've--

W: Turn it off.

K: Now just a--

W: Turn it off!

I'd say it does. It doesn't have to smear "LEGION ESCAPED!!!!111one" all over it to create suspicions and plausible outcomes.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:12 .

[Jebel Krong]

Lumikki wrote...

Of course if you play renegade you gonna have harder time, it's nature been renegade. You "kill" all you allies, while paragon gathers them as friend.

er, no that's not how renegades work: you kill all the enemies, and those who might become enemies, yes, but you don't necessarily kill any allies. the lack of leaving enemies alive is the biggest boon: paragons, due to the lack of said foresight should have an equally - but different - tough time of it.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...
Renegades don't have a "harder time" of winning (you could argue they have an easier time but it's a minor difference), they may take less risks and go for the "expedient" rather than "moral" approach but that doesn't give a "worse" outcome and they still win in the end.

THAT EVERYONE WINS IN THE END IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Renegade choices are not validated by the game. Paragon choices are. Again and again, we see that Paragons get more appreciative emails, and possible bad outcomes of their decisions never materialize, while it's the other way round for Renegades. How else than "worse" can you interpret that? How can you argue that, for instance, an ending where the Reapers are gone but 80% of the galaxy is depopulated is not worse than one where only 10% is? Both are "we win" scenarios, so of course any claim that they aren't equal is "purely subjective". /sarcasm

Anyway, having "uneven" stories in the game isn't proof of any "bias".

Again, if the game is marketed for the game-spanning consequneces of its decisions as the ME trilogy is, then yes, it's pretty much proof of bias. It may not be intentional, but it's still there. 

I like the "gritty" story that a Renegade focussed character experiences, there's nothing "wrong" with it.

Well, if you like frustrated heroes whose decisions are invalidated again and again by "fate" (i.e. the writers) and who save the galaxy only to end up as a drunk on the Citadel, that's your prerogative. But I feel rather secure in the assumption that this was not the intention of the writers, nor the wish of most players who make Renegade decisions. And a "gritty" mood actually necessitates that the Renegade decisions sometimes have a proper pragmatic benefit over their alternatives. Otherwise it's not gritty but depressing.

Most criminals that Shepard shows mercy to are ultimately arrested (particularly in ME1) so it's not like they're all getting away and turning into lovely people or something.

*Balak: gets away
*Fist: gets away
*Rana (if you count her as such): gets away
*Helena Blake: gets away AND reforms
*The krogan blackmailer: gets away
*Jeong: gets away

[Ieldra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
It's funny, I recall Arrival being absolutely loathed by a lot of paragons on the forums because there was no happy ending and that they were forced to kill the 300k people. It's become so ingrained that there's positives for the paragon that they expected to save everybody and stop the Reapers from arriving at the same time.

Yeah...that just proves my point that in the rest of the games you can always wriggle out of the hard decisions. But I love Arrival for the same reason - that it brings home that it's impossible to stay squeaky clean in a conflict like this.

No, Arrival actually doesn't do a very good job. It doesn't bring home the nature of the decision to the player. To do that we should have had the option to refuse to destroy the relay and kill those colonists... and get a game over screen as a result. THAT would leave a mark on the player.

Of course, that would have been preferable. But that they forced that choice on Shepard has had an effect, given by the reactions of quite a few players who complained that they were unable to wriggle out of it. Not quite as harsh a message as I would've wished, but at least something.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:05 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

THAT EVERYONE WINS IN THE END IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Renegade choices are not validated by the game. Paragon choices are. Again and again, we see that Paragons get more appreciative emails, and possible bad outcomes of their decisions never materialize, while it's the other way round for Renegades. How else than "worse" can you interpret that?

That's a different point to the one you've been making.  I mentioned that there's a flaw in terms of the lack of recognition for a lot of choices (and it's by no means restricted to Renegades).  That being said, this only really applies to a few situations and mostly in terms of transferring to ME2.  It certainly doesn't completely undermine the story or the game (especially since most "extras" are nothing but flavour or some minor bonus). 

Ieldra2 wrote...

How can you argue that, for instance, an ending where the Reapers are gone but 80% of the galaxy is depopulated is not worse than one where only 10% is? Both are "we win" scenarios, so of course any claim that they aren't equal is "purely subjective". /sarcasm

Because either way the player wins the game, gets the same gameplay and gets a satisfying story.  Some people are happy with stories in which the protagonists lose or struggle to win (isn't that what you're arguing for changes towards in the first place?) and there's nothing wrong with that.  Personal preference for storylines doesn't prove that a story is "bad" if it doesn't meet your personal tastes.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Again, if the game is marketed for the game-spanning consequneces of its decisions as the ME trilogy is, then yes, it's pretty much proof of bias. It may not be intentional, but it's still there.

It's really not.  The whole game is made by the same people, they didn't make the story go certain ways just to annoy a particular group of anticipated players.  Game spanning consequences don't have to be "win" or "lose", a consequence is what happens as a result of an event and is not restricted to "negative" results.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, if you like frustrated heroes whose decisions are invalidated again and again by "fate" (i.e. the writers) and who save the galaxy only to end up as a drunk on the Citadel, that's your prerogative. But I feel rather secure in the assumption that this was not the intention of the writers, nor the wish of most players who make Renegade decisions. And a "gritty" mood actually necessitates that the Renegade decisions sometimes have a proper pragmatic benefit over their alternatives. Otherwise it's not gritty but depressing.

What game were you playing? I don't remember ever being told in my Renegade playthrough that the guy I killed was actually a good guy or that the Rachni Queen really did want to help or anything that "invalidates" my decisions.  There certainly isn't evidence of this before making decisions so Shepard has no reason to think the actions are totally unjustified and "wrong".

You're saying there are flaws in the story but using out of story factors to try and prove it.  If you make one choice, the other doesn't happen and isn't part of your story.  It's a simple mechanic and it works, the fact that you can't resist comparing two separate stories does nothing to prove that either is "wrong".

Ieldra2 wrote...

*Balak: gets away
*Fist: gets away
*Rana (if you count her as such): gets away
*Helena Blake: gets away AND reforms
*The krogan blackmailer: gets away
*Jeong: gets away

*Balak gets away because the alternative is losing lives, it's not exactly showing mercy and it's not unjustifiable either.
*Fist is a minor criminal whose operation you just destroyed and you don't have time to arrest him, it's really C-Sec's failure if he gets away (plus we don't know he wasn't caught, he could have served a sentence and he says you "ruined his life").
*Rana may be mercy, as you say it depends on the extent you think she deserves death for her involvement in the operation (plus in ME1 Shepard only says "run" when there's about to be a massive explosion, it's not exactly a massive amount of mercy).  On both occasions you meet her arrest isn't really possible either, so it's kill or let go.
*Helena can get away for both "moralities", the only reason Shepard let's her go is on the basis that she reforms (if she didn't, she could end up dead.  It might have been more interesting to have her not reform so you could see if Shepard keeps the promise but that's not the way it went.
*The Krogan blackmailer is a middle-man, arresting him could expose the scandal and killing him seems a bit over the top if it's not necessary (also, he can get away for Renegade players).
*Jeong is another one that both can spare, he's useful and keeping him alive and out of jail is for the greater good of the colony (it's a sacrifice, basically).

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:16 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Again, the OP isn't saying Paragons should 'lose' in the grand scheme of things.. but that they shouldn't get the most positive outcomes for every single decision.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:42 .

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, Arrival actually doesn't do a very good job. It doesn't bring home the nature of the decision to the player. To do that we should have had the option to refuse to destroy the relay and kill those colonists... and get a game over screen as a result. THAT would leave a mark on the player.

I kind of agree but, since every other decision in the game is a genuine choice with no wrong answer, this could cause annoyance.  That said, it'd only be one exception and there's a cool cutscene reward for those who make the wrong choice so it wouldn't be that bad (and a simple horizontal only dialogue wheel would avoid complaints of "morality bias").

[Nightdragon8]

I experienced the same thing, imo I just wanted to "option" to push the button, I wouldn't mind it being the ONLY option. But for me I think it would have been better if the player had to press the button themsleves because honestly at that point I felt disconnected from Shep. And yes I would have pushed the button. (90% paragon player) (maybe with one last chance at trying to contact the colony but I would have still done it.

I see what people are "worried about" but I seriously doubt that they are going to make it paragon = win, renagade = lose. That woudl be stuiped and really lack luster

Also look at all the renegade stuff you do... IMO not much about the only one that would IMO make a difference is the rachnai queen, and maybe blowing up the geth base. Only because with the rachni and extra geth troopers you have more "bodies" to fight for you. Other than that I don't see how being renegade or Paragon will = lose or win.

Because other than those major events, just because you kill a few colonist to kill a terrorist or kill criminals I don't think it is going to make a huge galactic difference.

And whatever you think your renegade is, it is still "means to an end" mentality. which means if you have to let million people die to get your job done then so be it.

if you think about it, really a paragon Spectre is not a very good one, Renegade is accutly more "Spectrish" Tho I think with Paragon they are making it more of a James Bond sort of thing.

So I think people need to realize that in both KOTR games you didn't lose because you went to the darkside. the ending just changed was all.

Honestly we don't even know what Bioware is going to to do, Is it going to be "loseable" at all? other than dieing and restarting from last save?

[Nerevar-as]

Saphra Deden wrote...

In my experience most players were quite content to realize that "obviously" destroying the relay was the "only choice". The very same people who will argue that focusing on Sovereign is not the obvious or "only" real choice at the Battle of the Citadel, despite the stakes being just as high and the decision being largely the same. So I really don't think anyone learned anything.

It´s not the same.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

I experienced the same thing, imo I just wanted to "option" to push the button, I wouldn't mind it being the ONLY option. But for me I think it would have been better if the player had to press the button themsleves because honestly at that point I felt disconnected from Shep. And yes I would have pushed the button. (90% paragon player) (maybe with one last chance at trying to contact the colony but I would have still done it.

I see what people are "worried about" but I seriously doubt that they are going to make it paragon = win, renagade = lose. That woudl be stuiped and really lack luster

Also look at all the renegade stuff you do... IMO not much about the only one that would IMO make a difference is the rachnai queen, and maybe blowing up the geth base. Only because with the rachni and extra geth troopers you have more "bodies" to fight for you. Other than that I don't see how being renegade or Paragon will = lose or win.

Because other than those major events, just because you kill a few colonist to kill a terrorist or kill criminals I don't think it is going to make a huge galactic difference.

And whatever you think your renegade is, it is still "means to an end" mentality. which means if you have to let million people die to get your job done then so be it.

if you think about it, really a paragon Spectre is not a very good one, Renegade is accutly more "Spectrish" Tho I think with Paragon they are making it more of a James Bond sort of thing.

So I think people need to realize that in both KOTR games you didn't lose because you went to the darkside. the ending just changed was all.

Honestly we don't even know what Bioware is going to to do, Is it going to be "loseable" at all? other than dieing and restarting from last save?

People still seem to be missing the point. The outcomes did not have to play out the way that they did.

In the Battle of the Citadel, Concentrating on Sovereign could've easily saved more lives over the Paragon choice (while the Paragon choice got to save the Council). Heck, the Paragon choice could've backfired and Sovereign could've gained control of the station while the attempt to save the Council was made (either by running out of time or by not having enough forces to destroy Sovereign).

The issue is favoritism... that the games wrap their consequences around one type of choice... and have done so exclusively every time. Nothing negative is mentioned over the Renegade alternative for making a Paragon decision (even when there has been ample opportunity to do so).

Conversely, nothing positive is mentioned over the Paragon side if you made a Renegade choice, while the opposite is true for Paragon choices.

Even when game characters initially favor a Renegade choice, the Paragon decision yields no negative feedback from them... on the contrary, they get unanimous and unrealitic support and praise while the Renegade gets disagreement and scorn. And that just doesn't make sense.

[Nerevar-as]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

In my experience most players were quite content to realize that "obviously" destroying the relay was the "only choice". The very same people who will argue that focusing on Sovereign is not the obvious or "only" real choice at the Battle of the Citadel, despite the stakes being just as high and the decision being largely the same. So I really don't think anyone learned anything.

It´s not the same.

It IS the same!

The Reapers are mere moments from entering the galaxy and if they do so at this time it will mean the end of all sentient life.

You can either stop them right now right here at the cost of many lives, or you can save those lives and then try to stop the Reapers.

The situation is identical to the Council decision.

Arrival is a certainty, and the batarians are dead whatever happens. In the Citadel, Shepard has taken control of the relay, Saren is out of the game (or so we think), and Sovereign is a sitting duck for all his firepower. So I think saving the DS (I do it for the 10k crew, Council can go to hell) doesn´t seem such a big risk. Yes, later things get more complicated, but at the moment of making the choice things look quite good on our side.

[Perfecti0nist]

At least us Renegades get to play as a badass character.

I can't play the game as a Paragon, it makes me feel like a total wuss.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

In my experience most players were quite content to realize that "obviously" destroying the relay was the "only choice". The very same people who will argue that focusing on Sovereign is not the obvious or "only" real choice at the Battle of the Citadel, despite the stakes being just as high and the decision being largely the same. So I really don't think anyone learned anything.

It´s not the same.

It IS the same!

The Reapers are mere moments from entering the galaxy and if they do so at this time it will mean the end of all sentient life.

You can either stop them right now right here at the cost of many lives, or you can save those lives and then try to stop the Reapers.

The situation is identical to the Council decision.

Arrival is a certainty, and the batarians are dead whatever happens. In the Citadel, Shepard has taken control of the relay, Saren is out of the game (or so we think), and Sovereign is a sitting duck for all his firepower. So I think saving the DS (I do it for the 10k crew, Council can go to hell) doesn´t seem such a big risk. Yes, later things get more complicated, but at the moment of making the choice things look quite good on our side.

Incorrect, Vigil was clear that he only offered a temporary solution and even your squad yells at you to try and take Sovereign down "before he regains control of the station."

That's the first thing your squad says when you tell them that Vigil's file worked.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:59 .

[Barquiel]

The Destiny Ascension is a humans vs aliens decision. Arrival not.

It´s not the same.

Modifié par Barquiel, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:00 .