1768 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

Oh, it makes sense to choose it (I've never saved the Council other than to see how the world is like) but in that case, what positive outcome should follow from it? It makes perfect sense the galaxy is in a state of high tension over humanity's rise to the Council.

Maybe the final boss battle is easier and shorter, because Sovereign is taken down more quickly.  Maybe there'd be less damage to the Citadel, etc.

[In Exile]

Valentia X wrote..
Killing Dr Heart (although I'm going to preface this entire response that a lot of this is probably YMMV) springs to mind. Mad scientist with no sense of ethics? Mordin Solus on the dark side? Although tbh ME1 sort of failed on the whole 'Renegade does not mean Evil is Dumb' thing.

But the alternative is arresting him. Why should that neccesarily be a worse end (him escaping just seems like a gotcha! moment)?

Shorts,

Paragon Shepard is also inconsistently characterized, because sometimes in ME2 you get "right uses might for right" (e.g. on Omega, where Shepard is either nice thug or mean thug).

I tend to agree with you overall on how Renegade Shepard is unstable. You really see it well with FemShep, because of how much Hale overacts.

[robarcool]

Kasai666 wrote...

Renegade should equal epic win!
Seriously though, Renegades get the short end of the stick when it comes to stuff like this. It needs to be fixed that blue doesn't equal win.

Well, renegades also get to do somewhat funnier stuff when it comes to dialogue interrupts. Every path has its pros and cons.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maybe the final boss battle is easier and shorter, because Sovereign is taken down more quickly.  Maybe there'd be less damage to the Citadel, etc.

I'm thinking the issue is that those that want a positive end mean Udina's vision of human supremacy, which isn't really all that sensible or reasonable (in terms of it ever happening, I mean).

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:35 .

[Phaedon]

Can we not have Any Morality = Win?

I see renegades complaining all the time, and yet their path being the less rewarding one is very debateable at best.

[In Exile]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Sacrificing so many humans to save the Council, which left the Alliance a lot weaker in ME2, should have resulted in some negative sentiment from humans in ME2. Perhaps even from some Cerberus folks. This would counter-balance all the praise from aliens.

That sounds reasonable, but that's not a positive end for the Renegade choice - it's just a reasonable negative consequence for the paragon one. Do you see the difference?

[George-Kinsill]

I think the biggest problem with paragons is that many people simply say that Paragons deserve good outcomes since they put in more effort, but in countless games, this is the best path since more effort=more gameplay, and in the overall story, there are no consequences, despite the many party characters that state spending time to fix every problem will cause untold destruction as there is not enough time to fix every problem (Morrigan, Silk Fox, Wrex, Canderous, etc.). What BW needs to do for Paragons is have that supposed timelimit mentioned by those other characters take full effect. In ME2 they sort of did this with the SM and trying to save your crew, but this could be avoided if you did every side quest and loyalty mission before the direlect Reaper mission.

Instead, in ME3 there should be a time limit in the form of casualties on earth. If someone wants to be a pure paragon and work out a permenant fix between the Geth and Quarians instead of quickly reducing the Geth to spare parts, then all of North America's populace should be reduced to husks, with Anderson on Earth detailing how horrible the situation is, with news reports of images of children being turned into husks, and great cities completely anihilated, with nothing left. And if the paragon takes to long, Earth will be beyond saving, Anderson will die (and you'll have to fight him) and humanity will be reduced to a state similar to the drell, dependent on another race for welfare. But overall, the paragon will get the reward of every other species being well off, and peaceful (with Geth and Quarians singing Kumbaiya).
A renegade basically saves earth as quick as possible, always choosing the quickest solution, getting to Earth in time to save a large part of it, but all the other races suffering untold losses, with galactic law and order collapsing, the council dissolved, and the galaxy made into a dog-eat-dog galaxy. However, humanity is able to establish itself as a regional hegemon.

As long winded as this response was, it would be gereat ethically, with the question of whether or not you have a duy to protect your own species instead of the wellbeing of the galaxy brought to the forefront, bringing up the story Ashley told of whether or not you would sacrifice your dog to save yourself from a bear attack. A renegade would sacrifice the dog and get away unscathed, and a paragon saving the dog, but becoming a cripple in the process. If BW were to do something like this, I think we all would win in the form of a more emotionally invested ME series.

Modifié par George-Kinsill, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:41 .

[Raiil]

In Exile wrote...

Valentia X wrote..
Killing Dr Heart (although I'm going to preface this entire response that a lot of this is probably YMMV) springs to mind. Mad scientist with no sense of ethics? Mordin Solus on the dark side? Although tbh ME1 sort of failed on the whole 'Renegade does not mean Evil is Dumb' thing.

But the alternative is arresting him. Why should that neccesarily be a worse end (him escaping just seems like a gotcha! moment)?

Shorts,

Paragon Shepard is also inconsistently characterized, because sometimes in ME2 you get "right uses might for right" (e.g. on Omega, where Shepard is either nice thug or mean thug).

I tend to agree with you overall on how Renegade Shepard is unstable. You really see it well with FemShep, because of how much Hale overacts.

As I said, YMMV. Personally, I think some people should be wiped from the surface of the universe, and he happens to be one of them. I don't need some sort of huge reward, but an email from someone who was victimised or maybe a sibling of someone who died due to the bastard thanking me for getting rid of him would have been nice.

Back to my original point, I don't want the renegade/paragon system removed because it's essentially entrenched in the game play. All I want is some sort of recognition that not being too much of one or the other has some sort of payoff. It could be as simple as situations wherein someone who is basically the paragon or renegade can't be trusted for whatever contrived reason, but someone who seems to take each mission on a case by case basis on a regular basis (instead of just the occasional renegade or paragon interrupt) might, for once, have options the others don't. 

This would work in some of my playthroughts, but not others, since I tend to either go renegon (about 60/40 by the end of ME2) or totally paragon, and I'd like for my herp derp vanguard who thinks we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya to get shot in the face with reality- sometimes being the nice guy backfires. And when I do my renegade playthrough, I'd like the same.

Additionally, I'd enjoy more situations like the interrogation portion of Thane's- I believe there's one part where there's a renegade-only dialogue option. Something where taking a strong stance in one direction generally precludes another. Again, I don't want it to be every option- but once a while, I'd like the renegade guy to be able to end a situation whereas a paragon can't, simply because sweet-talking won't work, or one where the paragon can soothe everyone, but Mr Spectre Srs Bsns finds that trying to blast his way through isn't going to solve things.

[mauro2222]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Paragon players don't put in anymore effort than Renegade players. No matter what choice you pick the game generally gives you an identical battle anyway. Like with Balak. Even if you choose to let him go you still get stuck fighting his goons. (Paragons should have skipped that part in my opinion)

The thing is, Paragons put morals and lives above mission successful. Logically this should mean that occasionally Paragons don't get the job done. In the end this would give them a reputation as a hero, but also as somebody who might not win at all costs. Meaning that certain factions or people may not seek out their aid, resulting in different quests.

Like in ME1, actually. A Renegade is not asked to save the hostages from the biotic terrorists (the Sirta Foundation ones) because Shepard's ruthless reputation means he's not appealing to the Alliance for that mission. Conversely, Paragon' Shepard's non-violent and peaceful-when-possible approach means that Hackett doesn't ever ask Shepard to go and "negotiate" with Darius because he fears Shepard just might give in to all of Darius' demands.

Renegade Shepard should be seen as less of a hero by many, but the people and groups not concerned with heroism but with more practical matters (such as the Council, Alliance, Cerberus) would be more likely to enlist their aid for certain missions. Paragon Shepard would miss out on these things but would receive a lot more good will elsewhere. People would be more willing to trust Paragon Shepard on faith and to follow his/her lead.

This

[Raiil]

Saphra Deden wrote...



The thing is, Paragons put morals and lives above mission successful. Logically this should mean that occasionally Paragons don't get the job done. In the end this would give them a reputation as a hero, but also as somebody who might not win at all costs. Meaning that certain factions or people may not seek out their aid, resulting in different quests.

I think this is a good point; the Renegade counterpoint is that they might complete bollocks a mission simply because they chose the expedient option and basically have a non-game ending failure. Someone looking for diplomacy might go looking for paragon Shepard; someone who needs to have a situation shotgunned into submission will probably look for the renegade. 

And potentially, those who go either way might have access to some if they lean paragade or renegon, or have something unique for them.

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

^ No, no. IA, but even by nor making a decision is in fact making one.

Now, with Legion's situation, it only makes no sense because it is logically a no-win situation - you have those. Save one or save millions? People will die. Something of this magnitude is not solved by simply saying: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Legion's LM makes lots of sense, but folks are over-analyzing it.

Rewriting could actually be worse than destroying because those re-written may turn on you (look at Cerberus). Destroying those may mean that "you didn't get them all" angering the ones still active, thus coming after you, too. (Again, see Cerberus as if you take out the entire Army, odds are you've still got TIM to deal with)

Both scenarios could end up bad which makes perfect sense.

Again, I get you wanting indifference, but eventually it'll lead you to a "yes or no" decision - there's really no getting around it.

Save the world or let all go to hell? Whatever happens, happens. This game is a gamble, but how are you going to win anything if you're afraid to lose when you may have to lose alot before you win some?

Can't win them all!

I can't speak for everyone, but while A House Divided is my favourite loyalty mission bar none, the actual end option versus previous dialogue is borderline retarded because it's basically paragon 'brain washing is wrong! it is unethical! final paragon option: rewrite the geth!'

There's a lot of side-eyeing that goes on because the switch comes rather randomly with Legion basically not having an opinion on the matter and just about everyone but Thane and Jack (I think) rooting for the kill-switch based on the fact that they're geth, Jack saying that it's preferable to die as yourself rather than being nuked into obedience, and Thane saying there's really no moral difference- but he gets antsy if you choose the renegade 'they're just machines' responses. Shepard themselves don't really talk it through, just give a short blurb about why it's right/wrong, and then it changes for no apparent reason.

It's more a case of

Shepard: This is wrong - only to realize later, there's no choice. Again, you get into that situation. Shepard should know aligning with Cerberus, but Shepard had no choice given that Shepard wasn't going sit idly - despite being told to. "I'll do it even if it bites me in the ass!" IN Legion's case as Shepard's: "What is the lesser of two evils." That is an entirely different question as opposed to "what's right and wrong."

Alliance/Council vs Cerberus
Cerberus vs. The Reapers.

Who is the lesser of two evils in both cases?

Do you see the difference?

[In Exile]

Valentia X wrote...
As I said, YMMV. Personally, I think some people should be wiped from the surface of the universe, and he happens to be one of them. I don't need some sort of huge reward, but an email from someone who was victimised or maybe a sibling of someone who died due to the bastard thanking me for getting rid of him would have been nice.

That would be a little incoherent. How would that person know you killed Saleon?

All I want is some sort of recognition that not being too much of one or the other has some sort of payoff. It could be as simple as situations wherein someone who is basically the paragon or renegade can't be trusted for whatever contrived reason, but someone who seems to take each mission on a case by case basis on a regular basis (instead of just the occasional renegade or paragon interrupt) might, for once, have options the others don't.

But how do you implemented that? It sounds like a nice idea... but what kinds of situations would it actually work for?

Saphra Deden wrote...
The thing is, Paragons put morals and
lives above mission successful. Logically this should mean that
occasionally Paragons don't get the job done. In
the end this would give them a reputation as a hero, but also as
somebody who might not win at all costs. Meaning that certain factions
or people may not seek out their aid, resulting in different quests.

Well, no. That's not logical at all. Let's say I'm lazy and have an IQ of 200. I put just about everything ahead of studying short of showing up for the exam and 3 hrs of work a week. I graduate with an A+ average as Valedictorian. Totally possible. 

Putting lives and morals above success just means that if there was a dichotomy between success and morals, you'd choose success. But there's no reason to believe there'd ever be a case where these two things wouldn't overlap without a specific example.

Like in ME1, actually. A Renegade is not asked to save the
hostages from the biotic terrorists (the Sirta Foundation ones) because
Shepard's ruthless reputation means he's not appealing to the Alliance
for that mission. Conversely, Paragon' Shepard's non-violent and
peaceful-when-possible approach means that Hackett doesn't ever ask
Shepard to go and "negotiate" with Darius because he fears Shepard just
might give in to all of Darius' demands.

No, that's not the reason. It's that Darius wouldn't take Paragon Shepard seriously. Renegade Shepard would have the aggressive personality needed to keep Darius in line.

Renegade Shepard should be seen as less of a hero by many, but the
people and groups not concerned with heroism but with more practical
matters (such as the Council, Alliance, Cerberus) would be more likely
to enlist their aid for certain missions. Paragon Shepard would miss out
on these things but would receive a lot more good will elsewhere.
People would be more willing to trust Paragon Shepard on faith and to
follow his/her lead.

Well, no. Saving all hostages in a hostage situation is a practical matter. This isn't the right way to segment the issue.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 05:55 .

[Raiil]

[quote]Repearized Miranda wrote...

[quote]Valentia X wrote...

I can't speak for everyone, but while A House Divided is my favourite loyalty mission bar none, the actual end option versus previous dialogue is borderline retarded because it's basically paragon 'brain washing is wrong! it is unethical! final paragon option: rewrite the geth!'

There's a lot of side-eyeing that goes on because the switch comes rather randomly with Legion basically not having an opinion on the matter and just about everyone but Thane and Jack (I think) rooting for the kill-switch based on the fact that they're geth, Jack saying that it's preferable to die as yourself rather than being nuked into obedience, and Thane saying there's really no moral difference- but he gets antsy if you choose the renegade 'they're just machines' responses. Shepard themselves don't really talk it through, just give a short blurb about why it's right/wrong, and then it changes for no apparent reason.

[/quote]

It's more a case of

Shepard: This is wrong - only to realize later, there's no choice. Again, you get into that situation. Shepard should know aligning with Cerberus, but Shepard had no choice given that Shepard wasn't going sit idly - despite being told to. "I'll do it even if it bites me in the ass!" IN Legion's case as Shepard's: "What is the lesser of two evils." That is an entirely different question as opposed to "what's right and wrong."

Alliance/Council vs Cerberus
Cerberus vs. The Reapers.[/quote]

I'd buy the whole Shepard changing their mind thing if it were something discussed during the mission. It's not. You can headcanon that it is (and I'm cool with that), as my Shepard's actual reasoning for dusting the geth was not 'they're machines!' but because brainwashing is so ethically wrong in her book that she can't do it. She fought the enemy and bested them, but she's not going to be the enemy and pull their tactics. So she gives them a soldier's death.

If there was more discussion, I'd totally agree. But it's not, and it turns into personal interpretation. And since that basically falls under headcanon anyways, we're left staring at an option that was renegade fifteen minutes earlier and now is the 'compassionate' option. Does not computer.

Who is the lesser of two evils in both cases?

Do you see the difference?[/quote]

[rapscallioness]

Personally I don't like either one of them. Paragon or Renegade. I didn't like being stuck having to earn "points" in order to enact whatever decision I felt was right for the moment.

There were times when I felt that the Renegade option was the best option, but because I had done Paragon the last few times, I didn't have enuf "points" to unlock the necessary Renegade action.

I didn't understand that. It was frustrating.

[In Exile]

Saphra Deden wrote...
What the hell has that go to do with what I said?

It addresses how what you said doesn't follow logically. It illustrates the reasoning in a parallel context.

Yeah, it means you are putting more emphasis on morals and thus are more prone to failure. That's logical.

No, it doesn't. It only works if it's actually the case that morals and mission success trade off against each other. But that isn't anything you've shown.

Sometimes lives are the mission and in those cases Paragon Shepard is first pic because Paragon Shepard has a reputation for saving innocent lives.

Well, sure. But you've yet to show how 'morals' aren't the mission, which is what you said.

Yes, it is.

Darius did not want some "badass" like Renegade Shepard coming to make the negotiation. He felt it was an insult. He wanted an official Alliance negotiator or somebody who could be taken seriously as a diplomat... like I don't know, Paragon Shepard. That's the whole point. Darius doesn't want to be seen as a thug, he wants to be seen as a legitimate ally of the Alliance and a sovereign power.

Shepard isn't a diplomat either way. She's a Council Spectre (so not even representative of the Alliance to begin with).

No, not always. Sometimes the more important thing is just stopping the terrorists. If, however, you REALLY want the hostages saved you send Paragon Shepard because you know that no matter what Paragon Shepard will save those hostages. Renegade Shepard is more likely to attack aggressively and just prioritize gunning down the badguys. Sure, he might save the hostages, but its more risky.

You haven't broken down your own scenario enough. The only case where stopping the terrorist would take priority is if they threaten even more lives... but in that case it isn't clear at all that the moral imperative would be to save those hostages instead of the greater number of lives.

[Raiil]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Valentia X wrote...
As I said, YMMV. Personally, I think some people should be wiped from the surface of the universe, and he happens to be one of them. I don't need some sort of huge reward, but an email from someone who was victimised or maybe a sibling of someone who died due to the bastard thanking me for getting rid of him would have been nice. [/quote]

That would be a little incoherent. How would that person know you killed Saleon? [/quote][/quote]

Probably the same way Garrus's dead squadmate's wife somehow learned that Shepard had taken Garrus on board when everyone else thinks he's dead. Shepard has no secrets! 

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Valentia X wrote...

[quote]All I want is some sort of recognition that not being too much of one or the other has some sort of payoff. It could be as simple as situations wherein someone who is basically the paragon or renegade can't be trusted for whatever contrived reason, but someone who seems to take each mission on a case by case basis on a regular basis (instead of just the occasional renegade or paragon interrupt) might, for once, have options the others don't. [/quote]

But how do you implemented that? It sounds like a nice idea... but what kinds of situations would it actually work for?[/quote][/quote]

It'd be a (relatively) easy implementation. Let's say we put the paragade versus paragon divide as such: There is an internal bar that represents paragon points. There is an internal bar that represents renegade points. If you have 75% paragon and 25% renegade, you are considered too paragon for this very special paragade/renegon mission. If, however, you're only 60% paragon and 40% renegade, you now fall under the paragade title, and you are now open to take this very special mission. Or dialogue option. This could be implemented ME1 or ME2 style- numerical versus statistical- and it's not tied to charm or intimidate. Obviously, the renegon option would be reversed. However, for gameplay purposes, paragade and renegon would probably have to be lumped together. Basically, going over 3/4s in one way or another would lock out that dialogue.

As for situational dialogue and choices, I mentioned a dialogue option during the interrogation portion of Thane's mission wherein there is only an intimidate option, no charm one as well. I wouldn't propose this for every, not even most situations and missions, but popping up from time to time would be nice. Sometimes paragon only, sometimes renegade only, sometimes 'we go for context!' only.

[quote]In Exile wrote..
[quote]Saphra Deden wrote...
The thing is, Paragons put morals and
lives above mission successful. Logically this should mean that
occasionally Paragons don't get the job done. In
the end this would give them a reputation as a hero, but also as
somebody who might not win at all costs. Meaning that certain factions
or people may not seek out their aid, resulting in different quests.[/quote]



Well, no. That's not logical at all. Let's say I'm lazy and have an IQ of 200. I put just about everything ahead of studying short of showing up for the exam and 3 hrs of work a week. I graduate with an A+ average as Valedictorian. Totally possible. 

Putting lives and morals above success just means that if there was a dichotomy between success and morals, you'd choose success. But there's no reason to believe there'd ever be a case where these two things wouldn't overlap without a specific example.[/quote]

If the mission involved you trying to reach point X to catch Y, and you are faced with situation Z, wherein the paragon option is to save some random people who can't seem to stay out of the way, and you choose to save them, you may have the moral high ground- but you've failed the mission. It's not critical mission failiure as in 'reload and try again', but you have effectively failed. Sort of like Zaeed's LM, except there's no way to paragon your way out of it- you've failed the mission, you don't collect the credits. Being righteous might be enough for some people, but not for whomever sent you on the mission in the first place.

Modifié par Valentia X, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:14 .

[Drone223]

Well both Paragon and renagade will achieve the same goal in the end but they have different methods of reaching that goal and Bioware will reward you for your choices regadless of what they are, the idea of 'punishment' to me sounds like there should be a right choice and a wroung choice in the big choices where imo there should be no wrong choice

[Apollo Starflare]

This is one area that still worries me a little, especially after the whole 'Cerberus are indoctrinated! Derp' thing.

As some other posters have pointed out, the way a Paragon does buisness should mean that sometimes the mission falls by the wayside, with doing The Right Thing coming first. History has proven that sometimes the grim and Renegade-y action gets results, however unpleasant that might seem. I hope that is reflected in ME3 where we have already been told whole civilisations could be at stake depending on Shepard's actions and choices.

Obviously the end result will be the same: Shepard will find a way to defeat the Reapers. Short of the speculated possible ending where the Reapers win but Shepard lays down the foundation of their eventual defeat somehow (unlikely to happen).

The point is the route there should change drastically depending on who your Shepard is. At this point in the trilogy more than ever.

I'm not some die hard Renegade either, I play both styles of character, but I think it cheapens the playstyle of a Paragon to have it any other way. There should always be a risk that doing the Right Thing could lead to bad juju, the 'reward' is that you have had the moral fortitude to stick by your beliefs.

There shouldn't always be a third 'get out clause' option.

Anyway in terms of the final battle I'm hoping there is a whole bunch of outcomes, varying from mildly different to massively different.

[Massadonious1]

Well, if BtDS was an honest hostage situation, we'd negotiate Balak for the hostages, then apprehend him or take him out if he turned hostile. Because honestly, when was the last time the cops gave, much less let someone escape in a helicopter?

BioWare just forced that specific choice for P/R purposes.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:19 .

[In Exile]

Saphra Deden wrote...
What I said does follow logically. If your priority is not mission success then you are more likely not to succeed in the mission than somebody who does prioritize mission success.

No, it doesn't. That's not how logic works. Again, what you need to show is that morals (or lives) are directly at odds with the mission succeeding.

Obviously those are the cases I'm talking about.

"If it's actually the case," doesn't mean it's ever the case. You have to show these cases exist.

Moral's weren't the mission.

Umm...

“Terra Nova will die, Shepard. Not just our colony. The planet.” — Simon Atwell

can save the millions of innocent civilians before the asteroid
completes its deadly descent.


The moral (and lives) are totally about stopping Terra Nova.

Letting Balak go relates to whether he will kill in the future (lives) and whether the present hostages' lives are worth it (morals).

Paragon Shepard is still more of a diplomat than Renegade Shepard and would probably be better recieved by Lord Darius.

Being diplomatic != being an actual diplomat. That's ridiculous. It's like saying being sexy is the same as being sex.

There's also the fact that Paragon Shepard would be more likely to grovel as Darius wants if it means succeeding in the negotiation.

There's absolutely no reason to think this is true.

Hackett was counting on Shepard's short temper and dislike for BS to turn the negotiation into a blood bath and kill Darius in the process. That's why he doesn't contact you if you are a Paragon.

You mean, he doesn't contact you as a paragon because he really just wants someone to assasinate Darius?

Modifié par In Exile, 05 juillet 2011 - 06:19 .