100 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

This is a bit of a long post, but bear with me!

I recall when Mass Effect (1) was in development, one of the writers took his time to explain the theoretical difference between a Paragon and a Renegade Shepard.

Mass Effect was to be drastically different from it's predecessors, KOTOR and JE, in that, Shepard is not, and can not, be evil.  Shepard has a fixed alignment - good.  Shepard wants to save the galaxy.

The difference between Paragon and Renegade is how Shepard goes about doing so.  A Paragon Shepard upholds a high level of morals.  (S)he will not break the law, will go out of the way to preserve life, and avoid conflict where it is not necessary.  Paragon Shepard will not quite go to the extremes that Renegade Shepard will to get the job done, if there is a choice.

[*SPOILERS BELOW*]

A good example of the difference between the two, is the choice to be made at the end of the 'Bring Down the Sky' DLC in Mass Effect.  Balak is holding a handful of hostages in a cell with a large bomb.  Shepard can choose from:

A) Let Balak, an extremely dangerous terrorist who almost killed millions with the meteor, escape, and deactivate the bomb, saving perhaps 5 lives, but potentially endangering millions in years to come.

 Let Balak detonate the bomb and kill the 5 or so hostages, then take him down.

A is the Paragon choice.  B is the Renegade choice.

Renegade Shepard is still a good character at heart.  (S)he wants to save the galaxy, and as many lives as possible.  Renegade Shepard however, is willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done.  Choose between somebody they love and 100 civilians?  The 100 civilians win.  Choose between 5 hostages to die now, or potentially millions in years to come, the 5 hostages die now, no doubt about it.

Now, here is the problem.  In theory, to achieve the best possible outcomes, one should have to make the renegade decisions sometimes.  After all, if the outcomes of Paragon and Renegade actions are identical in all scenarios, what is the point of renegade existing?  Renegade Shepard will break a law, cause a death or two, to save more lives in the future.  But if Paragon Shepard can do the same thing, without breaking any laws, or causing any deaths more than absolutely necessary, what is the point of Renegade Shepard?

The best example of this problem is whether to save the Council or not at the end of Mass Effect.

Immediately before you are presented with the option to save them, information about the consequences of your decision is shoved into your face.  Your squadmates reveal that if you save the Ascention, you will be 'wasting' the human fleet and putting yourself at a massive tactical disadvantage when it comes time to attack Sovereign.

So, let the Ascention be destroyed, give yourself the best chance at stopping Sovereign and saving the entire galaxy.  Or, waste your fleet saving the Council, and increase the chance that the Reapers will get through and all life in the galaxy will be extinguished.  Paragon, or Renegade.  Except, if you choose the Paragon option, nothing at all, whatsoever, plays out any differently.  You have the cake, and eat it.  The Council survives, and you have no tactical disadvantage whatsoever.

Which sums up the problem entirely.  Mass Effect 1 and 2 continually trick you into believing that if you make many of the Paragon choices, there will be major consequences on a large scale - but it's just a trick.  A lie.  It never happens.

Which brings me to the point of this topic.  Do Paragon and Renegade really represent meaningful choices, with vastly different outcomes?  No, not at all.  What do they represent then?  Tones?  When I say tones, think Dragon Age 2 ('nice', 'sarcastic', 'aggressive').  No choice most of the time, but you can make your Shepard sound like a nice person or an ass.

What do you think?

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:26 .

[Weskerr]

I think you're right. Nothing else to add heh.

[In Exile]

When ME1 came out, Bioware pushed the following motif: ''Shepard was the tip of the spear for humanity's expansion into the stars, and Shepard's actions would shape how humanity is seen and evolves.''

At least for ME1, the idea was that P/R would just be tone, not substantive difference.

Practically, I think it's all about the moral calculus. Paragon decisions tend to involve big risks - is it worth it to save the rachni, no matter the dangers? Is it worth it to cure the genophage, no matter the cost? Preserve the geth, even with their crimes and worship of the reapers? Whereas renegades are all about reducing your risks and hoping for the sure bet - the only big deviation being the Collector base, which is a risk either way (IMO, anyway).

I don't think all risks should pay off... but some should, and if they do, that's where the paragons decisions should pay off.

[Boiny Bunny]

In Exile:

I agree with what you've said, particularly about paragon decisions tending to involve big risks.

The problem that I am trying to get at is - thus far we haven't really seen any payoffs or negative consequences from taking those risks.

If we have to wait until the third game in a trilogy to see any real consequences of making those decisions, in my opinion, something has gone vastly wrong.

There have been a few threads here concerning whether Paragon Shepard will be able to get 'closure' on the Balak plot, by giving an opportunity to kill him in ME3. If this were the case, it would again be a case of the Paragon Shepard being able to have his/her cake, and eat it.

Rather, I would like to see in ME3, with respect to the Balak plot, a single news broadcast if you let him get away. The broadcast would describe how he just pulled off a successful attack on a human colony and killed 4 million people. The report would then go on to note that a Commander Shepard had the opportunity to kill him a few years earlier, but let him go in favour of saving 5 hostages.

Nothing further. No opportunity to track him down after that, or to stop him before. You made the decision to save the hostages and let him go. The consequences had a massive negative payoff.

If you did decide to kill him in ME, an equivalent news story, perhaps just noting that another annual memorial service had gone by for the 5 hostages lost.

On the other hand, it would also be nice to see (as I'm sure we will), that Paragon Shepard's trust in the Rachni Queen was not misplaced - and she and her children will come to his/her aid in ME3.

It is important to portray both positive and negative payoffs from taking those risks.  The trouble is, so far, it has all been positive.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:01 .

[Red Son Rising]

some choices offer dramatically different results, others provide nuance for situations that cant be avoided. the illusion of choice is very important tho, especially in the Mass Effect universe

my #1 complaint about the arrival dlc was that complete lack of illusion. things happen and shepard follows a clear, linear path from beginning to end: half the dialogue trees spit out the same answers

im not a completionist and my decision not to do everthing possible always gets ppl killed: i like that. some ppl have to die, others bite it by accident; either way, its my choice

nuance matters, its the reason i play mass effect and not linear campaigns like Gears or COD. i want to feel like my actions affect the game, i dont like being stuck to one path all the time

lie to me ME3, make me think im making a difference. please

[Vyse_Fina]

Well, what you are saying is basically a point me and some others have tried to make in the past. The way Paragon and Renegade work at the moment is kinda broken. People make decisions to max out their paragon/renegade-meter rather than thinking about what they'd do in any given situation. (because once you removed the persuade/intimidate skill and instead tied that ability to the para/renemeter people needed to max either for later conversations if they wanted the best outcome. Apart from that: videogamers are almost conditioned to max things out when they can)

We could go on with this right down to the point that Mass Effect faces the player with puzzles rather than choices and the condition required to finishing that puzzle is maxing out a stat.

There is also the problem with the lack of real consequenes. What Renegades do is usually a short term gain - long term loss thing most of the time with a few exceptions. The Paragons-actions on the other hand usually wouldn't result in immediate rewards, but some advantages in the long run. This system could be mixed up by situations as the ones you described above where letting the terrorist run just to save a few lives would come back to bite you in the sequel. Paragons could also easily be abused due to their good nature as seen during Samara's recruitment mission. (The Asari begging for her live, while claiming she is innocent, but later turned out to be a ruthless killer)

This could go on and on... Do we need the Para/Renegade meter? Can it be hidden to avoid influencing the player? Should we have factions instead? How can a good moral choice system work? How can there be meaningful differences without blowing up the budget? etc.

So yes, the way things stand right now everything turns out pretty much the same no matter what choices you make, which makes Paragon and Renegade choices rather meaningless. This could change drastically depending on how Bioware handles the outcomes of previous choices in ME3 though... We'll see.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 août 2011 - 10:15 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Red Son Rising:

Indeed, it is certainly realistic to suppose that some choices should have the same result, no matter what you do. My problem is, this seems to be all the choices in Mass Effect.

Choices involving killing squadmates so far, have had little to do with Paragon or Renegade.

I would love to see an actual choice in ME3, where you had to pick between say, your LI and a few million innocent civilians. No way around it. Do you pick the close emotional tie, or make the 'right' decision? Do what has to be done?

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:09 .

[Golden Owl]

@ Boiny Bunny...this would have been a very interesting post if it wasn't so colored with bias....there are in fact as many logical reasons behind a paragon Sheps choice as there are behind a renegades choice...a neutral OP would have been quite an intrigueing conversation starter.

[Red Son Rising]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Red Son Rising:

Indeed, it is certainly realistic to suppose that some choices should have the same result, no matter what you do. My problem is, this seems to be all the choices in Mass Effect.

Choices involving killing squadmates so far, have had little to do with Paragon or Renegade.

I would love to see an actual choice in ME3, where you had to pick between say, your LI and a few million innocent civilians. No way around it. Do you pick the close emotional tie, or make the 'right' decision? Do what has to be done?

id choose liara. wouldnt flinch and wouldnt look at the other choice for at least half a dozen playthrus. theres no way imma let liara die for any reason, odds are shep is gonna need her help down the road anyway

i kill a lot of teammates in ME2. regularly. zaeed might survive the sm but he never makes it off zorya. jacob always bites it in the tubes and thane always takes a beam to the gut on the ride in. isht happens, shep just steps in it

if the consequences and payoffs are gonna be delivered in emails and throw away text again im gonna stop worrying about them. im much more interested if they affect the gameplay and story in a meaningful way, good or bad

some of my canon decisions arent the best but shepard is gonna live with them. ill never kill the council and if i dont like the results ill have to cope with their bad judgement for one more game

it works both ways tho, i bought mass effect just to go back and save wrex. not seeing him on tuchanka was unbearable but seeing kaiden was absolutely unsettling: kaiden dies on virmire. period. hes not supposed to be in ME2 at all!

same for jacob and ME3. only way hes gonna be in that game is if someone drags his coffin out during the trial

Golden Owl wrote...

@ Boiny Bunny...this would have been a very interesting post if it wasn't so colored with bias....there are in fact as many logical reasons behind a paragon Sheps choice as there are behind a renegades choice...a neutral OP would have been quite an intrigueing conversation starter.

very objective post :innocent: 

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 11 août 2011 - 10:18 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Arcian wrote...

They do, in fact, represent meaningful choices with vastly different outcomes. Paragons will most likely give way for a multicultural, equal Citadel Council where each race is part of a larger unity at the cost of humanity's specialness, power and the Alliance's respect for Shepard.

Renegades, on the other hand, will pave the way for a dominant, human rule with every other species either made extinct or made subservient. Shepard will become a human hero and known forever as the legend who made an entire galaxy kneel before him/her.

Yes, I agree with what you said there.  The problem is, as I said above, none of that will happen until the ME3 epilogue.  You will get a few lines on slides, or perhaps a few cutscenes, describing how different the galaxy was due to Shepard's actions.

I'm trying to say, that's not even close to good enough.  You shouldn't have to play through 3 entire games to get 1 set of conclusions like those.

What you've said there is also overarching, and ignores the impact of individual decisions, such as letting Balak live or not.

An aggregate collection of 'Paragon' decisions versus an aggregate set of 'Renegade' decisions may give you a different ME3 epilogue, but it doesn't even come close to dealing with the problem of Paragons being able to have their cake and eat it.

That BS about being a "by-the-book-paragon" and a "get-the-job-done-renegade" doesn't apply any longer, even if that may have been BioWare's original intention. The ways both stories progress have diverged too much, especially with the inclusion of Cerberus and the ability to "agree" with them. Paragon and Renegade are just another Jedi vs Sith morality feature (the red facial cybernetics was kind of a dead giveaway).

And you know what? I have no problems with this at all.

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with most of what you have said there.  KOTOR is my favorite Bioware game, and I vastly enjoyed the ability to have wildly different plot conclusions depending on whether I chose to be a 'light side' jedi or 'dark side' sith lord.  In KOTOR, your choices didn't often lead to drastically different consequences, but they severely changed who you were as a character, and how you dealt with the problems surrounding you.  Unsurprisingly, and unfortunately, the only real 'consequences' from any of your decisions came in the epilogue.

That's sort of the point of this thread though.  Has the Paragon/Renegade system just turned into a personality/tone system - with a different epilogue - removing the different consequences of individual decisions along the way?

[Boiny Bunny]

Golden Owl wrote...

@ Boiny Bunny...this would have been a very interesting post if it wasn't so colored with bias....there are in fact as many logical reasons behind a paragon Sheps choice as there are behind a renegades choice...a neutral OP would have been quite an intrigueing conversation starter.

You're probably right - I was feeling slightly irked by the idea that Paragon Shepard would have the opportunity to kill Balak with no further consequences, when I wrote it.

If you have any suggestions of examples which colour things the other way around, I'd be happy to include them in the OP. 

The point of this thread certainly isn't to bash on Paragons after all - it will hopefully blossom into a discussion about what the Paragon/Renegade system has evolved into.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:21 .

[Golden Owl]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

@ Boiny Bunny...this would have been a very interesting post if it wasn't so colored with bias....there are in fact as many logical reasons behind a paragon Sheps choice as there are behind a renegades choice...a neutral OP would have been quite an intrigueing conversation starter.

You're probably right - I was feeling slightly irked by the idea that Paragon Shepard would have the opportunity to kill Balak with no further consequences, when I wrote it.

If you have any suggestions of examples which colour things the other way around, I'd be happy to include them in the OP. 

Kiddies kicking me off the net shortly...As a paragon player, I can be pretty biased myself, but always love the challenge of coming up with something completely neutral and will tackle it as soon as I'm able to retake the Net...

[Boiny Bunny]

Golden Owl wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

@ Boiny Bunny...this would have been a very interesting post if it wasn't so colored with bias....there are in fact as many logical reasons behind a paragon Sheps choice as there are behind a renegades choice...a neutral OP would have been quite an intrigueing conversation starter.

You're probably right - I was feeling slightly irked by the idea that Paragon Shepard would have the opportunity to kill Balak with no further consequences, when I wrote it.

If you have any suggestions of examples which colour things the other way around, I'd be happy to include them in the OP. 

Kiddies kicking me off the net shortly...As a paragon player, I can be pretty biased myself, but always love the challenge of coming up with something completely neutral and will tackle it as soon as I'm able to retake the Net...

No worries, send me a PM later if you like.

[Ieldra]

@Boiny Bunny
The problem you describe has spawned several threads and countless flame wars. I think that Paragons should not be able to eat their cake and have it. Neither should Renegades, but in their case the negative side effects are always obvious so that's not the problem.

As In Exile said, the risks taken by the Paragons should *sometimes* pay off, which means that they should also sometimes backfire with results worse than the Renegade alternatives. For if the backfiring didn't have worse results than the Renegade, there would be no point in ever taking a Renegade decision. You could always say "choose Paragon to get the same result with less side effects".

If Bioware is not willing to go that route, then it's better to take the system out completely. Perhaps that would be better anyway.

@Arcian:
I disagree. Some choices are certainly political like that, like the Council decision in ME1, but others are clearly of the "by the book" vs "get the job done" kind (ME1 Feros). And there are decisions that can be interpreted both way (Collector base). The important thing here is that people arguing pro-Renegade here almost *always* use the latter interpretation, which means that there is a significant interest to play the kind of Renegades who do things because they consider them necessary. Those who want to play a Sith-analogue are a small minority. I think Bioware should take that into account when creating the consequences of past (and current) decisions for ME3.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 août 2011 - 10:30 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Boiny Bunny
The problem you describe has spawned several threads and countless flame wars. I think that Paragons should not be able to eat their cake and have it. Neither should Renegades, but in their case the negative side effects are always obvious so that's not the problem.

As In Exile said, the risks taken by the Paragons should *sometimes* pay off, which means that they should also sometimes backfire with results worse than the Renegade alternatives. For if the backfiring didn't have worse results than the Renegade, there would be no point in ever taking a Renegade decision. You could always say "choose Paragon to get the same result with less side effects".

If Bioware is not willing to go that route, then it's better to take the system out completely. Perhaps that would be better anyway.

Couldn't agree more with most of what you have said there.  Hopefully this doesn't turn into a flamewar!

[In Exile]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
The problem that I am trying to get at is - thus far we haven't really seen any payoffs or negative consequences from taking those risks.

If we have to wait until the third game in a trilogy to see any real consequences of making those decisions, in my opinion, something has gone vastly wrong.
 

I don't think there have been any choices to have consequences for, aside for the Council choice. And that's drastically changed the galaxy, from humanity as loved protectors to humanity caught in a vicious cold war with the turians & on poor terms with the other Council races. 

There have been a few threads here concerning whether Paragon Shepard will be able to get 'closure' on the Balak plot, by giving an opportunity to kill him in ME3. If this were the case, it would again be a case of the Paragon Shepard being able to have his/her cake, and eat it.

I would certainly support Shepard getting another crack at Balak... with the caveat that this time, 1000s of people die before Shepard can intervene.

Rather, I would like to see in ME3, with respect to the Balak plot, a single news broadcast if you let him get away. The broadcast would describe how he just pulled off a successful attack on a human colony and killed 4 million people. The report would then go on to note that a Commander Shepard had the opportunity to kill him a few years earlier, but let him go in favour of saving 5 hostages.

I think it makes it more visceral for the game to incorporate it. The Renegade alternative could have a lackey carry out the same attack, but fail to cause more than 400 deaths because the lackey isn't as competent as Balak.

This has the advantage of letting the player see the cost of the decision.

On the other hand, it would also be nice to see (as I'm sure we will), that Paragon Shepard's trust in the Rachni Queen was not misplaced - and she and her children will come to his/her aid in ME3.

It is important to portray both positive and negative payoffs from taking those risks.  The trouble is, so far, it has all been positive.

What has a paragon Shepard done that should have negative consequences in ME1, beside Balak? If we lost if we saved the DA, that would just mean a cannon ending for ME1 (since obviously there is no ME2 with Sovereign winning). 

[Red Son Rising]

if the interrupt system gets an upgrade in ME3 i think some of these issues could be addressed. i would prefer decisions not be tied to a meter but if they are i want some dramatic results

pushin a goon out a window is cute, [nod to boiny bunny] choosing a teammate over a planet would be better. by default shep may be neutral but if i push the limits i want extra credit

startin to come around to boiny bunny's idea that choices should have some extreme consequences. i would prefer the meter to affect interrupts only, not regular conversations

renegade interupts can be extremely violent but at an extreme cost. paragon, i dunno. drawing a blank on how to make the good guy even more messianic
[is that a word? google? YES! thank you words w/ friends]

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
As In Exile said, the risks taken by the Paragons should *sometimes* pay off, which means that they should also sometimes backfire with results worse than the Renegade alternatives. For if the backfiring didn't have worse results than the Renegade, there would be no point in ever taking a Renegade decision. You could always say "choose Paragon to get the same result with less side effects". 

I really disagree with you here. The renegade decisions I made, I made them based on what was known at the time. Say I believed that killing the rachni was the right thing, because we had no way of knowing what the queen intended, and that I believed she may have once been and still is indoctrinated by the reapers. 

If it turns out we can't save more than 30% of humanity (instead of 80%) without her, then I would still stand by the choice. It was the right thing at the time.

I don't think a renegade choice needs an actual pay-off to be worth it, any more than a paragon choice needs a payoff to be worth it.

I disagree. Some choices are certainly political like that, like the Council decision in ME1, but others are clearly of the "by the book" vs "get the job done" kind (ME1 Feros). 

Killing alll the colonists is get the job done? I don't think there's a book on contagious infections by sentient lifeforms. 

The important thing here is that people arguing pro-Renegade here almost *always* use the latter interpretation, which means that there is a significant interest to play the kind of Renegades who do things because they consider them necessary. 

So? Just because players believe X will get the job done doesn't mean X should get the job done. No more than if a paragon believes that trying to have your cake and eat it too is worth it, that they should succeed. 

[Drone223]

The thing about saving the DA is that Alliance casulties are more higher than just going for soverign this makes the Alliance navy more weaker, Also leaving the DA to be blown up results in a Turian/Human arms race that could mean that Alliance will recover faster than just saving the DA it but it will be at the cost of diplomatic relationships between the council species,

[Weskerr]

Red Son Rising wrote...

id choose liara. wouldnt flinch and wouldnt look at the other choice for at least half a dozen playthrus. theres no way imma let liara die for any reason, odds are shep is gonna need her help down the road anyway

I lol'd when I read the part I bolded. Not in a condescending way either, but just because it's obvious how much you like Liara. Even if Shep didn't need her help down the road I bet you'd still pick Liara over the million people. Not to mention your avatar.

[Boiny Bunny]

In Exile wrote...

I think it makes it more visceral for the game to incorporate it. The Renegade alternative could have a lackey carry out the same attack, but fail to cause more than 400 deaths because the lackey isn't as competent as Balak.

This has the advantage of letting the player see the cost of the decision.

Yes - this would be a much better way to present it than what I wrote originally above.  The point is to somewhere along the line, portray a very negative consequence with making the Paragon decision.  I do think the number should be significantly higher than 400 however, but that's just a personal opinion.

On the other hand, it would also be nice to see (as I'm sure we will), that Paragon Shepard's trust in the Rachni Queen was not misplaced - and she and her children will come to his/her aid in ME3.

It is important to portray both positive and negative payoffs from taking those risks.  The trouble is, so far, it has all been positive.

What has a paragon Shepard done that should have negative consequences in ME1, beside Balak? If we lost if we saved the DA, that would just mean a cannon ending for ME1 (since obviously there is no ME2 with Sovereign winning). 

Some of these have consequences that could still be present in ME3, others have had their opportunity and not done anything with it:

* Forcing the alliance to give Serviceman Bhatia's body back to her husband, meaning they cannot do their research and save potentially thousands of lives in the future
* Decision to let the Rachni Queen live (could be good or backfire massively)
* Decision to let Balak go
* Decision to let Helena Blake live
* Decision to get water, power, food, for the Feros colony instead of immediately pursuing the main Geth forces in the ExoGeni building
* Letting the ExoGeni scientists researching the Thorian Creepers go free or executing them
* Decision to save the Council (obviously)

There are probably dozens more - if I'd played ME1 recently I'd recall a few more I'm sure.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 11 août 2011 - 10:53 .

[RPGamer13]

I look at it a different way, I constantly ask myself what's the point of Paragon if outcomes don't change.

A large number of them do, but those are minor at best. All the major decisions more often lead to the same outcome. And I'd rather needlessly sacrifice lives to reach that end. I loved shutting down the council at every turn on the ship, made each subsequent conversation more interesting than the last.

side note: I hope we get more things like that in Mass Effect 3 because that was missing when dealing with The Illusive Man.

[ItsThat01Guy]

At some point, the writers at Bioware lost sight of what Paragon/Renegade were supposed to be.

The paragon supports laws and morality over reason, and the renegade is completely focused on a their goal and will do anything necessary in pursuit of that goal.

However, in the games, the Paragon has gone out of their way to help people and be nice, and they never suffer. There is no downside. Nobody dies because Shepard wasted time. Nobody goes on a killing spree after Shepard lets them walk away.

Renegades on the other hand never benefit from focusing on the mission and being a jerk because the Paragon can achieve the same result without alienating other people. You aren't rewarded for being renegade, and that's the problem.

renegade choices also seem to be extremely unpredictable. Renegades should be a**holes to the people who deserve it, but picking the renegade dialogue option causes Shepard to be an a**hole all the time, even to people who don't deserve it or people who have done nothing but help him/her. Even worse is when picking the renegade option causes Shepard to start shooting when you thought you were just going to get a snarky comment. Bonus points if Shepard shoots somebody who wasn't a threat and had no reason to die.

The Balak example is a good example of what Paragon/Renegade should be, and it would be great if it and other Paragon decisions came back to bite us in the a**. Unfortunately, its the exception to the rule. Hopefully, things are different in ME3. Renegades should be focused on the mission, at all costs, not uncaring pricks who, more than likely, kick puppies when they're on shore leave.

Its also possible that I have no clue what I'm talking about. I usually play Paragon. And this is the internetz, so I have no real credibility.

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 11 août 2011 - 11:16 .

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
As In Exile said, the risks taken by the Paragons should *sometimes* pay off, which means that they should also sometimes backfire with results worse than the Renegade alternatives. For if the backfiring didn't have worse results than the Renegade, there would be no point in ever taking a Renegade decision. You could always say "choose Paragon to get the same result with less side effects". 

I really disagree with you here. The renegade decisions I made, I made them based on what was known at the time. Say I believed that killing the rachni was the right thing, because we had no way of knowing what the queen intended, and that I believed she may have once been and still is indoctrinated by the reapers. 

If it turns out we can't save more than 30% of humanity (instead of 80%) without her, then I would still stand by the choice. It was the right thing at the time.

I don't think a renegade choice needs an actual pay-off to be worth it, any more than a paragon choice needs a payoff to be worth it.

Not for any single playthrough, no, and not for any single choice. But we do not play the game in isolation. If you found that over several playthroughs and between many players, a pattern exists where all the Paragon choices always have the best results and all the Renegade choices have bad side effects and the minimal result to be considered successful, wouldn't you find that a tad unrealistic?

Like you, I will not change my past decisions based on consequences (with one exception) because I made them with the knowledge back then and still consider them the best or appropriate for that character. But if such a pattern continues to exist, I will hold it against the design of the decisions made by Bioware, because things don't work that way outside of fairy tales. And I don't want ME to turn into one. 

I disagree. Some choices are certainly political like that, like the Council decision in ME1, but others are clearly of the "by the book" vs "get the job done" kind (ME1 Feros). 

Killing alll the colonists is get the job done? I don't think there's a book on contagious infections by sentient lifeforms.

The choice is idiotic, I'll give you that. It's one I never take. But that's the reasoning presented by the game. It's certainly not a political thing about human dominance here. Quite the opposite, if you look at the result.

The important thing here is that people arguing pro-Renegade here almost *always* use the latter interpretation, which means that there is a significant interest to play the kind of Renegades who do things because they consider them necessary. 

So? Just because players believe X will get the job done doesn't mean X should get the job done. No more than if a paragon believes that trying to have your cake and eat it too is worth it, that they should succeed.

I would be fine with more failures as a result from wrong decisions, on both sides. But this is not about any single decision but about a design pattern of "Paragon is always successful at no significant cost" plus "Renegade is always minimally successfull with bad side effects". Such a pattern invalidates Renegade choices - "learn from experience and see that Paragon always works best". "If you want the best results play Paragon". That's what the game appears to tell me as an informed player who knows the outcomes of all decisions up to the point where we are now. And to that I reply: things don't work that way. If they do in the ME universe, I cannot continue to suspend my disbelief.

Since we don't know how things will turn out in ME3, the matter is not decided yet. I hope it won't come to pass.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 août 2011 - 11:50 .