100 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Son Rising]

its important to remember that games normally have to generate immediately predictable responses, long term consequences arent usually an issue. what happens next is generally the only feedback available

the best recent example is LA Noir:

if you think a grieving widow is lying theres no way to predict if Cole P431-P5 is gonna curse her out or pass her a handkerchief. you just have to choose doubt or lie and hope P431-P5 doesnt throw a chair at her face

long term results can be a lil unpredictable [thats cool] but in the short term there has to be some immediate predictable feedback. making tough decisions is hard, having no clue how the game will respond makes it impossible

[Ieldra]

Red Son Rising wrote...
its important to remember that games normally have to generate immediately predictable responses, long term consequences arent usually an issue. what happens next is generally the only feedback available

the best recent example is LA Noir:

if you think a grieving widow is lying theres no way to predict if Cole P431-P5 is gonna curse her out or pass her a handkerchief. you just have to choose doubt or lie and hope P431-P5 doesnt throw a chair at her face

long term results can be a lil unpredictable [thats cool] but in the short term there has to be some immediate predictable feedback. making tough decisions is hard, having no clue how the game will respond makes it impossible.

(1) Mass Effect is a game trilogy that does not fit the pattern. It is specifically made to implement long-term consequences. What is *usually* done does not matter for Mass Effect.

(2) No, making tough (=Renegade) decisions if you suspect it won't matter in the end and you get the same result is much harder. The immediate result of saving/killing the Council or the Rachni queen is obvious: they are alive or dead. But the mere fact that the Queen/Council are dead is not why the Renegade decision is usually taken.  Everyone also knows that it is a risk to save the Rachni queen or to draw resources from the fight against Sovereign to save the Council. To give you hints in advance about the outcome would invalidate the decision.
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 août 2011 - 12:28 .

[Yezdigerd]

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

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.

Except this has never been how it plays in the game.
Most renegade decisions aren't ruthlessly goal-oriented, but gratious orgies in cruelty that obviously makes you less likely to achieve your goals.
Paragon decisions are sometimes stuffy, but they at least imply that the Shepard is a real person in the mass effect universe.

[Veex]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Most renegade decisions aren't ruthlessly goal-oriented, but gratious orgies in cruelty that obviously makes you less likely to achieve your goals.

No they aren't. I'm not sure that any of them are.

The only ones I can think of are punching out Khalisa Al-Jilani.

[wetnasty]

Veex wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Most renegade decisions aren't ruthlessly goal-oriented, but gratious orgies in cruelty that obviously makes you less likely to achieve your goals.

No they aren't. I'm not sure that any of them are.

The only ones I can think of are punching out Khalisa Al-Jilani.

Don't forget pushing that Eclipse member out of the window at Nassana's place.

Not that I agree with the argument.

[wetnasty]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wetnasty wrote...
Don't forget pushing that Eclipse member out of the window at Nassana's place.

Not that I agree with the argument.

Necessary.

Well it was a bit counter to the goals. "Tell me where Nassana is."

"No."

*Punch*

*Splat*

"Well ****, I still don't know where she is. Oh wait, here's a datapad!"

[andy6915]

Veex wrote...
The only ones I can think of are punching out Khalisa Al-Jilani.

How about that? Screwing over every single person you can for the hell of it. Or, were those actions somehow "good guy who puts mission first"? Because I can't see how that wasn't Shepard just being a royal dick for no real except sick amusement.

If you don't feel like looking, it's when you take the evidence on Noveria, refuse to give it to Lorik, then go and tell Anoleis that his secretary is a spy AFTER you already have the card in the bag through another deal, just to watch them kill each other.

Modifié par andy69156915, 11 août 2011 - 02:23 .

[didymos1120]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

* 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

This is not Paragon.  It's one that can be solved with either Paragon or Renegade options no matter who you decide to persuade.  Same as how Wrex can be intimidated into backing down, or charmed.

* Decision to let Helena Blake live

Again, not Paragon.  You can intimidate her into compliance.

[Veex]

andy69156915 wrote...

If you don't feel like looking, it's when you take the evidence on Noveria, refuse to give it to Lorik, then go and tell Anoleis that his secretary is a spy AFTER you already have the card in the bag through another deal, just to watch them kill each other.

Hindsight doesn't play into the decision. Telling Anoleis that Parasini is a spy isn't cruel.

[andy6915]

Veex wrote...
Hindsight doesn't play into the decision. Telling Anoleis that Parasini is a spy isn't cruel.

You are already a shoe-in for the pass. Doing that is just making other peopls loves worse for absolutely no reason. You has nothing, NOTHING to gain from that. Except gratification of course.

Face it, renegade Shepard is just a troll.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I see another problem here to boot.

The games and media have conditioned us to go the Paragon route. Take a look back at the movies and games.
This about this for a second!

The goods guys colors? Blue an green. Lasers, lightsabers, conversation options.
Bad guys? Red lasers, led lightning, red lightsabers, red convo options.
combined with the "good guys always win" and high rewards for hte good guy path in bio Games.

You have to wonder how many people went for the blue options because they immediately indentified them as "better" options? And then went backwards from there, justifying their selection in reverse.
After all, if giving TIM the base is a red option, then TIM MUST be up to no good and I cannot trust him!

[didymos1120]

andy69156915 wrote...

Veex wrote...
Hindsight doesn't play into the decision. Telling Anoleis that Parasini is a spy isn't cruel.

You are already a shoe-in for the pass. Doing that is just making other peopls loves worse for absolutely no reason. You has nothing, NOTHING to gain from that. Except gratification of course.

Face it, renegade Shepard is just a troll.

Which is very obvious if you watch that cutscene.  Shep is clearly expecting very bad things to happen.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, people with brains can make their own decisions even if there are two bright and colorful dialogue options available.

The destruction of the Collector base fit pretty good with me, because I never really liked TIM, anyway. Most boring character I've seen in quite a while, and that includes plenty of Twilight and Transformers characters, which I really don't like.

He only needed a mustache to twirl at me, and I wouldn't have had to think at all about the decisions.

[andy6915]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shepard doesn't know the pass is "in the bag". All he has to go on is Parasini and Lorik's word.

Why not cut out the middle man and go straight to Anoleis? Mission comes first, remember?

And all you have with Anoleis is NOTHING. He never promised a pass, never even hinted he would give you one. You have absolutely no reason to go to him for the pass. Telling him about the spy does nothing but cause chaos.

Oh, and I can't find a video, but remember when you can completely screw over Lorik and make him get gigantic trouble by giving Anoleis the evidence? Renegade Shepard can tell Lorik "you chose not to testify, you obviously don't care about justice." right after effectively ruining his life for literally NO REASON.

Yeah, real 'mission first'.

Modifié par andy69156915, 11 août 2011 - 03:24 .

[Arppis]

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

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.

No, being paragon has nothing to do with obeying the law. Paragon is someone who sets example and inspires people. For example Robin Hood. Sometimes law doesn't work and Paragon needs to act against it. And the reason why paragon choices seem to pay off, is because he USES reason and inteligence, instead of bullying everyone to his way. Paragon tries to find outcome that satisfies everyone.

Renegade is the short and easy route, but it's also messy. Paragon is the longer and more patience requiring cleaner route. It is why naturaly the paragon gathers more allies.

If you can't live with the conciquences, you should pick the option you think has better long term outcome. That's what I always do, be it renegade or paragon. But naturaly, it goes to paragon options mostly.

Modifié par Arppis, 11 août 2011 - 03:45 .

[The Interloper]

The way I see it, the difference between paragon and renegade is this.

Renegades sacrifice the few for the many. If hostages must die so a dangerous threat can be eliminated, so be it. If you might be a threat later, if you promise to stop being evil (rachni) you still die. No chances must be taken when the safety of the many are concerned. This means rules must be broken and morality sometimes left at the wayside. Any end justifies the means if that end is the safety of the many.

Paragons sacrifice (or rather risk) the many for the few. Morality, law, and ethics must be protected and upheld whenever possible-without these to guide us, are we even worth protecting? Therefore, if saving others requires suffering and death on behalf of the innocent, no matter how many the many or how few the few, it is not a path worth taking (not that that means we let the many die, just that we should find another way). Thousands of alliance members will be sacrificed to save the council, the upholders of order. The rachni are spared, for they might be innocent, and the paragon will not kill them simply because they might be guilty-the chance they might again wage war on the galaxy is irrelevant. The paragon believes in morality and therefore that all should be saved, even if in attempting to save a handful he risks the rest. Upholding ethics is the final end, and if dangerous characters go free and people die, it's worth the price of a clean conscience.

So I agree with the op in that paragon actions somewhat loose their punch if the risks they take always turn out well. The whole point is that they uphold the ideals of "good" even when it means letting the guilty go unpunished, and possibly greater harm in the long run. They walk the walk, essentially, and therefore they must sometimes face the negative consequences of never bending. Paragons should be ruthless in their own way, and renegades benevolent.

But I do think BW had done a decent job of doing that. Not great, as the morality still turns into good/evil more often than not, but still decent. Belak does free if you save the hostages, and if you save the council, soveriegn still dies but lots of alliance navy die as well, and (if the lack of offhanded mentions is any indication) those ships weren't destroyed if you saved the council. The lack of real impact (ie a character dies if you save the ascention) blunts this, but it's still there.

There's also implications that if you save the rachni you have to fight rachni husks, and if you killed them you don't. We'll see if renegades get shafted anyway.

Modifié par The Interloper, 11 août 2011 - 04:34 .