100 réponses à ce sujet

[Homey C-Dawg]

What I think they should do is just use the paragon/renegade system for dialog options and stop awarding paragon/renegade points for the big decisions like council, rachni, collector base, etc.

Just my 2¢

[Boiny Bunny]

MrFob:

I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree to the point. The player should indeed be making decisions in the moment and not retrospectively. The problem is, you eventually come to realise that (thus far), if you always select the light blue option in dialogue, flowers will sprout at your feet and rainbows will bloom overhead. Now that I have finished ME1 and ME2, multiple times each, I know that even if I am playing a renegade, there is no tactical disadvantage to be had in saving the Council, so I'm not really inclined to let them die.

[Sisterofshane]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

MrFob:

I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree to the point. The player should indeed be making decisions in the moment and not retrospectively. The problem is, you eventually come to realise that (thus far), if you always select the light blue option in dialogue, flowers will sprout at your feet and rainbows will bloom overhead. Now that I have finished ME1 and ME2, multiple times each, I know that even if I am playing a renegade, there is no tactical disadvantage to be had in saving the Council, so I'm not really inclined to let them die.

I kind of agree with what you said earlier -- when it comes down to just talking, there should be a different system distinguishing between what needs to be said, and it should be separate from paragon/renegade choices/dialogue within the game.  Maybe make certain choices very hard to be ascertained as being either "paragon" or "renegade", if being ascertainable at all.  Force people to go with their gut, instead of choosing either red/blue, top/bottom.  Would this stop people from telling after-the-fact what choice was right and then revert to a previous save? No.  But for those people who want to have a more realistic play-through, it would certainly feel better.

[wizardryforever]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

MrFob:

I understand exactly what you are saying, and agree to the point. The player should indeed be making decisions in the moment and not retrospectively. The problem is, you eventually come to realise that (thus far), if you always select the light blue option in dialogue, flowers will sprout at your feet and rainbows will bloom overhead. Now that I have finished ME1 and ME2, multiple times each, I know that even if I am playing a renegade, there is no tactical disadvantage to be had in saving the Council, so I'm not really inclined to let them die.

I kind of agree with what you said earlier -- when it comes down to just talking, there should be a different system distinguishing between what needs to be said, and it should be separate from paragon/renegade choices/dialogue within the game.  Maybe make certain choices very hard to be ascertained as being either "paragon" or "renegade", if being ascertainable at all.  Force people to go with their gut, instead of choosing either red/blue, top/bottom.  Would this stop people from telling after-the-fact what choice was right and then revert to a previous save? No.  But for those people who want to have a more realistic play-through, it would certainly feel better.

Well I think some choices shouldn't be based on P/R at all.  Like the Heretic virus.  Do you use it or just blow them all up?  There are solid Paragon reasons for each, same with Renegade.  Rather than be a top/bottom choice, they should have made it a left/right choice, and award no points for either one.  I'd like to see more ambiguous cases like that, along with the more obvious P/R choices.

[MrFob]

@ Boiny
Yes, I know. It requires quite a bit of effort to distance yourself (as the player) from you character (as in Shepard) to not mind these obvious differences.
Now there comes in part that is very much up to personal taste I guess:
I think what BW actually intends here (as far as I can see at least) is to actually tell different stories that should not be valued against each other in term of cost benefit but rather valued as to how they fit the character, Shepard is played as, in this particular story.
What I mean is, if you play a total paragon Shep, you get the hero story and I would not be surprised (and also wouldn't mind) if a 100% paragon Shep gets the love and flowers ending in ME3. It is the very classical hero story.
However, If you play a renegade Shepard, you get a story where Shep fought hard, had to sacrificed a lot but proved to be of such strength of character that he kept going and beat the reapers - despite the fact that all he saved is a galaxy in ruins. He did save it against all the odds and all hope and only he could have done it because he was renegade. (leaving the s/he away because I am too lazy).
Maybe there will be other variable, too and maybe Shep will even have to sacrifice himself (although I think, if anything, that should be a separate choice).
I don't know how many endings BW goes for but say those two would be extremes.
Now you may argue that the cost-benefit factor of ending 1 is orders of magnitude better than ending 2 but I say, that the tone, the flavor of the story and the endings fits better to their respective characters this way and thus makes each Shepards decision even more meaningful in a way.
If my renegade Shep would somehow destroy the reapers with relative ease and not by the skin of his teeth, I ask myself if all the crap I pulled on the way there was really necesary.
On the other hand, if my paragon shep screws up big time, he'd look like a looser who didn't have the balls for the big decisions.
Of course, these endings might be interesting in terms of Sheps psychological state in their own right but I guess BW has to draw the line somewhere and this way, they will at least create something satisfying for everybody. (Of course I do hope they build in lots of options parallel and/or in the middle of these two extremes.)

Sheesh, this got out of hand a little .
I hoe I am making sense here and I understand that not everyone will see it that way but I think it makes sense from BWs perspective and I am happy for them to do it this way.

Modifié par MrFob, 12 août 2011 - 06:07 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

MrFob wrote...

However, it doesn't matter because you cannot judge Shepards choices retrospectively. You have to see them in the context, Shep is in at the time. When s/he is on the citadel, the choice (rush in to save council or save ships) is in both cases a good one. Retrospectively, paragon Shep got lucky. Good for him/her but that doesn't invalidate renegade Sheps choice at this Moment. It is a bit hard to see it that way in a replay because we know the consequences but when playing I always keep in mind that Shepard doesn't.

Both choices may be good ones when it comes to the actual outcome.
When it comes to the actual decision..the paragon choice seems a bigger gamble, and consequently a worse choice.
He risks not having enough ship to bring down Sovereign, and if that happens...the galaxy is doomed. The potential negative consequence is FAR worse than the renegade one.

[LadyJaneGrey]

MrFob wrote...

Sheesh, this got out of hand a little .
I hope I am making sense here and I understand that not everyone will see it that way but I think it makes sense from BWs perspective and I am happy for them to do it this way.

It made sense to me.  That's how I saw it once I had run both extremes.  Not every paragon/renegade decision or option fits neatly into the paradigm, but it seems like many color-coded decisions ask "how would your Shepard expect/want the universe to operate?" rather than "is your Shepard good or evil?"

[helemaalnicks]

I miss one view in this thread, that really needs to be pointed out. I have seen many people say renegade is evil (you obviously all know this is not the right way to describe it), but many people here still say renegades are a****oles. I think this is incorrect as well, shepard is a jerk, no way around it.

Why are paragon shepards jerks, possibly even worse then renegades? **SPOILERS FOLLOW**

1. News reporter. Renegade will punch her, tell her to f*** off. The assault was not necessary, however, at least shepard is honest. Paragon shepard will stand there and defend his case as if he's some kind of lawyer, no matter what choice he made. He will not talk about the lives he ended, the families who are hurt, no, he will explain why he is a hero, and how sacrifices can be for the greater good. Since he defends himself as a paragon, no matter what he did, he is a lying lawyer.
2. The genophage. Like (1), this is not about the choice itself shepard makes. Agree/disagree with the genophage, leave that aside for now. The conversations with mordin on board the normandy are very, very rude if you are paragon shepard. You don't say "i don't agree with you mordin", you're basically implying he was working on some kind of genocide. That is a huge oversimplification of a complicated problem/solution and just a blatant godwin. There is absolutely no need to tell mordin he did the wrong thing, even IF you think he did, he still did it for the right reasons, and there is no need to be so abusive about it. Thanks for telling me should suffice, if paragon was the lawfull choice. Telling people they commit genocide, when they clearly didn't, not at all appropriate behaviour, not polite.
3. The eclipse merc Elnora. The renegade interupt will kill her, and while renegade is supposed to be 'chaotic', these are exactly the times where shepard has the law on his/her side when (s)he kills her. Letting her go means she will never be found. The eclipse sisters run this area, there is no way that lazy detective will catch up with her, even after shepards killing spree. If you let her go however, you GAIN points for not doing your job, and you get a reward (information) to boot. That is just sick.
4. The shops. It seems obvious, but talking about all the shops if they're your favourite is not playing nice, and not polite either. You're again lawyering and playing with people as if they're toys. Intimidating would be my preference over selling out any day. Paragon shepard is very arrogant, not openminded, he is so sure about himself, and so sure he is the best thing that'll ever happen in the universe, that everyone else should just play along in the fancy tale he's making.

Well, I could go on for a while, but you get the idea. It is not 'just' lawful what shepard does if (s)he goes paragon all the way, it is lawyering, which is generally not viewed as a good characteristic. There is no need for a hero to have his/her head stuck up his/her own a**, and to be so arrogant that you'd even talk down to a professor (who in ME2 seems very reasonable, and a very good doctor, with high regards for medical ethics) as if he is some kind of monster. There is no reason to lie to everybody, to let criminals escape just to get some info. Shepard is a hero, but also human, so he will make mistakes no matter what path he chooses.

The system is therefor pretty good by my standards. Because gamers will tend to fill one of the bars, they will notice how both paragon and renegade are flawed, and question their own moral stance. If you try to do well all the time, you cannot come accross well at the same time. Sometimes we need nuance in our view, and the way paragon shepard presents himself prevents him from doing the right thing. I don't see paragon/renegade as ways to make the game easier either, the game doesn't get particularly harder if you just mix it up, you just miss a few teammates. Now, who cares if tali dies, or legion, or miranda or jack. It's not like you need all of them, and you even get to choose which one you want to keep around. The game therefor doesn't get influenced. I see paragon/renegade more as a storyline that is intended to confront us with the flaws of human nature (humans are the most individualistic of all species (samara)), and as such, I think it's done well.

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 01:18 .

[Boiny Bunny]

@ helemaalnicks:

I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the reporter conversation. Hitting her is not actually a renegade option. The only paragon and renegade options in that conversation relate to either promoting humanity working with aliens, or ranting about how humans can stand proudly alone and need no help from aliens.

As for Mordin, if I recall correctly, the paragon option was to tell him that he did the wrong thing, while the renegade option was to agree with his actions and deem them necessary. Which is the fundamental difference between Paragon and Renegade at it's core - Paragons are not willing to make moral compromises such as wiping out the Krogan, if there is even the remotest of chances that there is another option. Renegades would happily sterilise the Krogan if it gives a high chance of the galaxy returning to a peaceful state.

Personally, I don't think Paragon/Renegade should reflect Shepard's personality at all. 'Narky' dialogue options with squadmates for example, should simply be normal white writing, and not incur points.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 12 août 2011 - 01:28 .

[Patchwork]

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that paragon/renegade should be tonal, adding to Shepard's character. In conversation red or blue give points but actual decision should be middle of the wheel, not coloured and most importantly not give any morality points. The effect of the decision should show whether it's paragon or renegade not which metre increases.

In ME1 background gave bonuses was it the same in ME2? I didn't notice if it.

I hate that it was tied to persuasion in ME2. You had to stick to one path even if the paragon/renegade choice was not one your Shepard would make. Way to kill roleplay BW.

Helena Blake needs to bite paragons in the backside. That heel turn was so unbelievable it needs to shown as fake in ME3.

Saving the DA should mean more deaths on Earth as the Alliance has less ships and personnel.

[helemaalnicks]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

@ helemaalnicks:

I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the reporter conversation. Hitting her is not actually a renegade option. The only paragon and renegade options in that conversation relate to either promoting humanity working with aliens, or ranting about how humans can stand proudly alone and need no help from aliens.

As for Mordin, if I recall correctly, the paragon option was to tell him that he did the wrong thing, while the renegade option was to agree with his actions and deem them necessary. Which is the fundamental difference between Paragon and Renegade at it's core - Paragons are not willing to make moral compromises such as wiping out the Krogan, if there is even the remotest of chances that there is another option. Renegades would happily sterilise the Krogan if it gives a high chance of the galaxy returning to a peaceful state.

Personally, I don't think Paragon/Renegade should reflect Shepard's personality at all. 'Narky' dialogue options with squadmates for example, should simply be normal white writing, and not incur points.

Well, still, the paragon option is not just presenting facts, it's promoting them, and that is really not the correct thing to do when the facts involve so many lives being lost.

The mordin conversation is key for me, while paragon is about not being willing to make moral comprises, paragon questions like "You are a heartless killer!" aren't 'just' saying it's wrong, it's really bitter and not openminded, rather as close minded as the renegade.

Now, paragons are not willing to make moral compromises? What about Elnora? She is a soldier, she is in a warzone, and she draws, that should be MORE then enough to do your job as a spectre and stop her. An innocent victims' family lost a family member, and there are no laws to protect them, and there is no police to stop the killer. Then comes along a spectre, finally, to make things right, and he just lets her walk, even after she threatens to kill the spectre, because shepard is unwilling to kill in a cutscene. There isn't a single law, in real life, or in mass effect, that would prevent shepard from killing her when she draws. Yet paragon shepard chooses not to do his/her job, possibly because (s)he's afraid she'll come accross as ruthless.

Another excellent example comes during samara's loyalty. There are a few turian thugs who want to rob the place. Instead of threatening them to leave (shepards job) (s)he bails them out. No moral comprises? What about bribing violant gangs into keeping the peace. Paragon shepard simply seems afraid others, like the newsreporter, the people in the streets, will think of him/her as if (s)he is not a hero. Paragon shepard will do ANYTHING to avoid conflict, which is precisely why paragon is as morally flawed as renegade. There is no reason for a hero to pay criminals to stop them from commiting crime, except unwanted attention by the public/media, (s)he is simply not doing his/her job, and the flaws of the paragon/renegade story line are there for good reason, to show us the flaws of human morality in general.

Mr. Fob explains well what is up with the whole paragon/renegade system, these paragon flaws are meant to show the morality problems are shepards' problems, not renegades shepard problems, as they are often portrayed. There is also no need to fill up the bars, sure, you'd want to do that if you play through it multiple times, but I don't see a need to fill it up the first time you play the game, since it's easy to win the game without tali, or miranda, or jack, even legion (one of the best squadmates).

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 02:04 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

helemaalnicks wrote...

Shepard is a
hero, but also human, so he will make mistakes no matter what path he
chooses.

Alright, I really need some caffeine before answering this, but I'll still give it a shot.  Love the above quote.  You
make some fair points and, as you can see from my above post, I don't
think renegade necessarily equals evil or *******.  Both extremes have their moments of "I have the world completely figured out - listen to me as I deliver truth."  I also agree that the game can make you examine human nature and both extremes have problems.  Long live paragades! 

For #2, I can't argue with you about Mordin's loyalty mission; paragon Shepard comes across as a complete judgmental jerk.  The writers seemed to conflate tone and racism pretty badly in the whole mission.  (Bioware, the prompt to say "experimenting on helpless live test subjects is wrong" shouldn't lead to "Cerberus may be right.")

For #3, I saw Elnora as playing on the heart/head dichotomy.  Paragon Shepard comes across or naive or clueless, but I don't really see "jerk."  (That being said, chick dies in all my games.)


As for #1 and #4...dude, what did lawyers ever do to you?  How are they jerky?  In #1, Shepard defends his actions without lying before a journalist with an agenda.  He's not allowed to give a response because it would be a jerk move and "lying lawyering"?    In #4, Shepard offers a service in exchange for a discount.  Even if he does think "he is
the best thing that'll ever happen in the universe" (which can also apply to renegade Shep), how is offering a service the shopkeeper can turn down and other customers can choose not to believe worse than threatening violence? 

And, word to the wise, don't post

helemaalnicks wrote...

Now, who cares if tali dies, or legion,
or miranda or jack. It's not like you need all of them, and you even get
to choose which one you want to keep around.

in the character threads.  Many people play Bioware games and stick around because they enjoy a character and do care if he/she lives or dies. 

Off to find caffeine...

[helemaalnicks]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
For #2, I can't argue with you about Mordin's loyalty mission; paragon Shepard comes across as a complete judgmental jerk.  The writers seemed to conflate tone and racism pretty badly in the whole mission.  (Bioware, the prompt to say "experimenting on helpless live test subjects is wrong" shouldn't lead to "Cerberus may be right.")

I think BW put it in there intentionally, you see it as a flaw, I see it on a daily basis with politicians with a paragon mindset. They will say stuff like "[politician] is constantly discriminating, and we need to do something about his racist voters, which is pretty much taking an extreme stance against what you observe to be an extreme stance.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
As for #1 and #4...dude, what did lawyers ever do to you?  How are they jerky?  In #1, Shepard defends his actions without lying before a journalist with an agenda.  He's not allowed to give a response because it would be a jerk move and "lying lawyering"?    In #4, Shepard offers a service in exchange for a discount.  Even if he does think "he is
the best thing that'll ever happen in the universe" (which can also apply to renegade Shep), how is offering a service the shopkeeper can turn down and other customers can choose not to believe worse than threatening violence? 

It's easy. It's not that lawyers are bad people per se, absolutely not, I actually think criminal lawyer in my country is a very respectable job.

However, if you take the paragon answer to the news reporter, I immediately think of Iron man. Do you really think he presents himself as heroic as, for example, spiderman? While spiderman lurks in the darkness, and tries to lead a normal live on the side, no arrogance, no fancyness, just him and the misses, building a normal life, Iron man can't even resist the urge to share his 'secret' with the world even for 1 movie, and arrogantly shares his ubergreatness with the rest of the world through the media. I enjoy the iron man movies, and I enjoy the twist of a hero acting like an *** quite often, but if I had to make a moral judgement between spider and iron, picking iron would be really, really strange in my opinion.

About the last remark, I know this, but I thought I made it clear it was about the relation of characters dying to gameplay becoming harder/softer. I tried to say that not being able to make everyone loyal if you don't fill up the bar can't really be seen as a flaw in the game, in my opinion that is.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
(Bioware, the prompt to say "experimenting on helpless live test subjects is wrong" shouldn't lead to "Cerberus may be right.")

I have to respond to this as well. You say it shouldn't lead to 'cerberus is right', however, I see this line of reasoning ALL the time. People see a problem with a certain aspect of society, sees it is bad, sees an organisation is talking about the problem, and conclude "they're right".

Easy to find an example of this. Israel did [insert something that is bad], hamas fights Israel, thus, hamas is right. I see this line of reasoning all the time, and is the human way to respond to bad things happening, they get emotional (experimenting on live subjects, OMG horrible), and they conclude something that is completely irrational. I think shepards reasoning is really ment to be this 'bad'.

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 02:28 .

[helemaalnicks]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the reporter conversation. Hitting her is not actually a renegade option. The only paragon and renegade options in that conversation relate to either promoting humanity working with aliens, or ranting about how humans can stand proudly alone and need no help from aliens.

SPOILER:

I checked it, and renegade is exactly what I expected it to be. He will tell the reporter how she is nasty, and how he isn't going to talk about this on tv, and how everyone should respect the dead, since they're all better then the reporter (and 'the dead' includes a lot of batarians). Renegade shepard is not a hardcore racist, he just makes racial jokes and comments, he has a ship full of aliens, so he would never say stuff like that about humanity standing proudly alone. Next time you play renegade shepard, notice the aliens @ the normandy, could've been a clue about renegade shepard not wanting humanity to 'stand alone' :happy:

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 02:39 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

@helemaalnicks
I like your explanation for #2: "I'm so tolerant I can't tolerate anyone who isn't as tolerant as I am."    Still, it felt weird for paragon/renegade to mean concillatory vs. confrontational at some moments and then mean extreme civil rights vs. either "yay, Cerberus" or "yay, genophage!"  I'm not arguing that some people don't overreact because of what another group did, but a game can't tell the player "you can shape your character" and then yank the nuance and control so abruptly away without some kind of warning.  I'm not playing "a certain aspect of society" - I'm trying to play Shepard in a gray universe.

Glad to hear you aren't "kill all the lawyers."  I can't speak directly to Spiderman and Ironman, but I just rewatched a paragon response to the reporter.  Shepard doesn't seem to be an attention hog; he respects and honors all the people who died that day and doesn't try to promote himself.  And it's hard to fault Shepard for not having a secret identity like Spiderman; he's a soldier who fulfilled his mission, not a mutant vigilante who doesn't answer to an organization.

And I still don't get how the paragon path for a discount is jerkier than the renegade path. 

[helemaalnicks]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
And I still don't get how the paragon path for a discount is jerkier than the renegade path. 

Renegade path is definately more 'jerky', but paragon is selfpromotion (ironman style) and if a hero does it, it is a tad arrogant.
The biggest problem I have with it however, is the line "my favourite shop in the citadel". Shepard is lying when getting the discount with that line, at least as many times as there are shops in the citadel where he does it, minus 1. I don't think lying for a discount is morally acceptable, I'd say it's jerky.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
I'm not playing "a certain aspect of society"

No, you're not, however, you are playing as shepard, and despite the fact that you can shape his personality, you cannot choose everything about him. You cannot choose to be a homosexual male shepard, you cannot choose to be non-human, and since you have to be human, you are bound to make some mistakes humans make. However, since you don't have to make the same decision every time, and since you can even fill the bar (get everyone to survive) without making every decision paragon, I will always tell mordin that he did the right thing, even if I'm trying to get a perfect paragon finish. I will also lie to the stores, knowingly doing something pretty bad, but hey, I'm not perfect.

Playing the game in such a way that you're the perfect flawless hero is very hard anyway, I'm not saying everyone should stop harrassing the shopkeepers about discounts. I know there are worse things. Did you ever notice the appartment in mordin's recruitment mission where paragon shep tells the looters to stop looting is the only appartment shepard does not loot himself? Paragon shepard has hypocrisy written all over him. I'm amazed there are people who don't see this, and think paragon shep is some morally flawless perfect god...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
 Still, it felt weird for paragon/renegade to mean concillatory vs. confrontational at some moments and then mean extreme civil rights vs. either "yay, Cerberus" or "yay, genophage!"

There is always the philosphic middle option. You can take a questioning and openminded approach to any problem, however, this doesn't earn you any points. That is because the universe is at stake, and philosophical heroes are not the ones who are famous or infamous among the population. Nobody has ever heard of the hero's that never talked about their causes, and always asked questions while saving people from burning buildings. People remember Hannibal, the ruthless commander, or Pericles, the hero who talked about how great democracy was as an inspiration for battle.
You also will get stuck with this approach, because in times of crisis, there are always hard decisions to be made, where "thanks for asking me" just doesn't cut it. If you play ME2 neutrally, you'll get stuck at the first decision you have to make (mordin loyalty probably?).

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 03:33 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

helemaalnicks wrote...

Renegade path is definately more 'jerky', but paragon is selfpromotion (ironman style) and if a hero does it, it is a tad arrogant.
The biggest problem I have with it however, is the line "my favourite shop in the citadel". Shepard is lying when getting the discount with that line, at least as many times as there are shops in the citadel where he does it, minus 1. I don't think lying for a discount is morally acceptable, I'd say it's jerky.

I'm not a big fan of that line either, but it's good to see we agree that the renegade path is worse.

helemaalnicks wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
I'm not playing "a certain aspect of society"

No, you're not, however, you are playing as shepard, and despite the fact that you can shape his personality, you cannot choose everything about him. You cannot choose to be a homosexual male shepard, you cannot choose to be non-human, and since you have to be human, you are bound to make some mistakes humans make. However, since you don't have to make the same decision every time, and since you can even fill the bar (get everyone to survive) without making every decision paragon, I will always tell mordin that he did the right thing, even if I'm trying to get a perfect paragon finish. I will also lie to the stores, knowingly doing something pretty bad, but hey, I'm not perfect.

Playing the game in such a way that you're the perfect flawless hero is very hard anyway, I'm not saying everyone should stop harrassing the shopkeepers about discounts. I know there are worse things. Did you ever notice the appartment in mordin's recruitment mission where paragon shep tells the looters to stop looting is the only appartment shepard does not loot himself? Paragon shepard has hypocrisy written all over him. I'm amazed there are people who don't see this, and think paragon shep is some morally flawless perfect god...

At this point, I think we're talking past each other rather than addressing the same issues regarding Mordin's loyalty mission.  You make good observations about human nature and how paragons can be jerks, but I don't think Bioware should be able to arbitrarily change shift what it means to choose paragon or renegade options in a certain sections of the game and then have us excuse it as some commentary on human extremism.  To be clear, I'm not whinging because I couldn't get blue or red points for what I chose (again, more of a paragade personally though I have all kinds of Shepards); I'm whinging because unclear paraphrasing when offering such extreme points of view is jarring and annoying.

As for the looters, I thought it was Bioware lampshading.  Also, after seeing the paragon interview response, do you still see it as a jerk paragon move?

[LadyJaneGrey]

helemaalnicks wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
 Still, it felt weird for paragon/renegade to mean concillatory vs. confrontational at some moments and then mean extreme civil rights vs. either "yay, Cerberus" or "yay, genophage!"

There is always the philosphic middle option. You can take a questioning and openminded approach to any problem, however, this doesn't earn you any points. That is because the universe is at stake, and philosophical heroes are not the ones who are famous or infamous among the population. Nobody has ever heard of the hero's that never talked about their causes, and always asked questions while saving people from burning buildings. People remember Hannibal, the ruthless commander, or Pericles, the hero who talked about how great democracy was as an inspiration for battle.
You also will get stuck with this approach, because in times of crisis, there are always hard decisions to be made, where "thanks for asking me" just doesn't cut it. If you play ME2 neutrally, you'll get stuck at the first decision you have to make (mordin loyalty probably?).

You might consider posting another comment if you need to add major sections later on.  Otherwise they get kind of hard to address. 

Anyway, yes, the less judgmental middle option is there, and use it a good bit.

At this point I really cannot see what your point is overall.  Intentionally or not, you seem to keep changing the goal posts.  You griped about how paragon Shepard is just as big a jerk as renegade Shepard, have not addressed some points regarding paragon Shepard examples, talked about what kind of comic book hero you prefer, cited a couple historical historical figures and present day Middle East politics, and justified shifts in how Bioware uses paragon/renegade to make it some kind of meta-commentary on the human condition.    The best I can come up with is "both paragons and renegades have extreme views that make them jerks which makes them less heroic - but the only way to be a memorable hero and get anything done is to hold these extreme jerk positions."

I'm not trying to mean, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

Edit: grammar fail

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 12 août 2011 - 04:04 .

[helemaalnicks]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
At this point, I think we're talking past each other rather than addressing the same issues regarding Mordin's loyalty mission.  You make good observations about human nature and how paragons can be jerks, but I don't think Bioware should be able to arbitrarily change shift what it means to choose paragon or renegade options in a certain sections of the game and then have us excuse it as some commentary on human extremism.  To be clear, I'm not whinging because I couldn't get blue or red points for what I chose (again, more of a paragade personally though I have all kinds of Shepards); I'm whinging because unclear paraphrasing when offering such extreme points of view is jarring and annoying.

As for the looters, I thought it was Bioware lampshading.  Also, after seeing the paragon interview response, do you still see it as a jerk paragon move?

I really don't think we are talking past eachother. I noticed that picking a line can result in a big opinion, but I can actually relate to that. Not too long ago someone asked me @ a party whether or not I was going to the afterparty. My initial thoughts were, no, I don't know you, you don't know me, why are you asking me this? This seemed like a proper reaction, it was all true, and it wasn't offensive, but it came out "no, I won't, so I'll never see you again". Obviously, something didn't go right between my thought and politely responding to it, maybe you never had this problem, for me the things that come out as a result of the thoughtmessage you click seem very logical.

When you pick a paragon or renegade option, and they are extreme, they're usually accompanied by an 'investigate' so you can note there is an extreme before you click to take the stance. Usually there is also a middle ground option (thanks for telling me mording) to prevent you from calling him either hitler or ghandi for working on the genophage. It's really that simple. You may not like the fact that words don't always come out as you choose them during conversation, or even resemble the thought you were trying to bring to expression, but that sometimes happens when people talk, and a defensive, philosophical approach prevents it, but isn't really handy when you're trying to save the universe.

[helemaalnicks]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
I'm not a big fan of that line either, but it's good to see we agree that the renegade path is worse.

I was still thinking about it, but I have to say, it depends. If you're in India, most renegade shop conversations are actually perfectly acceptable. I find it hard to choose between ruthless hard negotiation and lying for discount. I cannot say which I actually prefer. Especially if you consider the fact that paragon shep will threaten a shopkeeper with injuries, while renegade shepard will make him a business proposal that is lawfull in the western world (starbucks does it all the time). Refers to: Harrot the elcor.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
You might consider posting another comment if you need to add major sections later on.  Otherwise they get kind of hard to address. 

Anyway, yes, the less judgmental middle option is there, and use it a good bit.

At this point I really cannot see what your point is overall.  Intentionally or not, you seem to keep changing the goal posts.  You griped about how paragon Shepard is just as big a jerk as renegade Shepard, have not addressed some points regarding paragon Shepard examples, talked about what kind of comic book hero you prefer, cited a couple historical historical figures and present day Middle East politics, and justified shifts in how Bioware uses paragon/renegade to make it some kind of meta-commentary on the human condition.    The best I can come up with is "both paragons and renegades have extreme views that make them jerks which makes them less heroic - but the only way to be a memorable hero and get anything done is to hold these extreme jerk positions."

I'm not trying to mean, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

Edit: grammar fail

My point is, that Bioware did something incredible with the paragon/renegade feature, and I consider it almost flawless. I'm defending the system as it is, because it seems appropriate for this game and the choices you have to make in it. I think BW did the impossible by making a morality system without absolute morality, it made the good and bad choices both necessary for the heroic tale that they wanted to show us in the complex universe it is set in. I understand the references might be complicated for people who don't know what they refer to, but the point I was trying to make was, I really like how it's done, and I completely agree with the way the game distributes points, and I completely agree with the fact that the lines come out differently then the line you picked.

This thread was a commentary about the system, and how it 'favours' the naive paragon, and I simply disagree. I think both stances are of heroes saving the universe, they're simply flavours you can add to your story, and very insightfull ones, because the 2 non-question stances are very often flawed.

Modifié par helemaalnicks, 12 août 2011 - 04:21 .

[Red Son Rising]

helemaalnicks wrote...
This thread was a commentary about the system, and how it 'favours' the naive paragon, and I simply disagree. I think both stances are of heroes saving the universe, they're simply flavours you can add to your story, and very insightfull ones, because the 2 non-question stances are very often flawed.

i wouldnt call the systems almost flawless but it works much better in ME2 with the interrupt upgrade.i would like to see more interrupts and more bad a** from shepard when choosing the renegade path

my #1 problem w/ choosing renegade options isnt that shepard doesnt get the job done, its looking like a total d*bag in the process. its hard to believe renegades have to be complete jerks while saving the galaxy

Double OG shepards
You talk too much  
How bout Goodbye? - hehe, 'can you fly bobby?' [Clarence no!]
Shepard!

Double D*Bag shepards
I just saved you from a [WHAA!?]

mass effect shepard was just a ****** w/ a gun, at least in ME2 there was a lil more bad a** than a**hole. i just hope ME3 continues the trend

[beNNe152]

Modifié par beNNe152, 13 août 2011 - 11:14 .

[beNNe152]

The biggest issue on the Paragon/Renegade system in my opinion is the fact that you are kinda "forced" to choose Paragon or Renegade from the beginning in order to have all dialogue options and skill benefits. I am the kind of player that likes to think about every single decision based on morality and not gameplay skills or whatever. I really want to choose Renegade or Paragon based on the context and my thoughts in each situation, not because it is red or blue, without having these disadvantages for not really deciding between one of these options all along.

Like Ser Bard already said:

Ser Bard wrote...

I hate that it was tied to persuasion in ME2. You had to stick to one path even if the paragon/renegade choice was not one your Shepard would make. Way to kill roleplay BW.

So true.

Modifié par beNNe152, 13 août 2011 - 11:14 .

[chester013]

I'm in agreement with the OP, this is what I have observed over the last two games. We shall see if our choices really do have any major consequences in ME3.

I play paragon for the vast majority of play through, but I (when I was playing ME1) could never let Balak go in good conscience, just never seemed right. It was the sentimental, soft option which let a terrorist go unpunished.

[Xaidan]

Hi guys, i don't generally comment on here but I do like to read other people's opinions and see how the Mass Effect community grows each year, but this is one of the few topics which hasn't exploded into a flame war so i figured id jump into the discussion.
First off id like to say that my personal opinion of the paragon/renegade system of mass effect is constantly evolving. I see it as sort of a situational type deal as well as a broad net cast over decisions on the red or blue side. For instance we all know blue is more of the Cole Phelps while red is more of the fill in the blank commando from fill in the blank favorite war movie. But i also see blue as being the charmer, like with the shops on the citadel. While one side of shep bullies the other is sort of like Han Solo, smiles and fast talker. I dont think either are supposed to be fully perfect or evil. The best way i could describe it is that shepard is already who he is and we get to tweak certain things that he would do. Like a creek or river, its still going to keep flowing but we can do things to change its course. Not the best analogy but cut me some slack. I do readily agree that in alot of cases in the game when making multiple shepards, up to fifteen right now lol, you were restricted in you choices like beNNe152 and Ser Bard said in that you were more pushed towards a set path of choices or face the consequences of missing out on special options later in the game.
Lastly, i read all the posts and i didnt see anyone that brought it up but about Balak i know that in ME2 on the citadel at least there is a news broadcast that states that he is still at large along with a memorial to you for saving the colony or something like that. Its something that can be easily missed, ive only heard it once, otherwise id think youd have to keep clicking the news terminal. But that in itself is a whole different subject for the people who didnt like that alot of the decisions you made in ME1 only showed up in emails.
Well thats all i could hastily throw together, probably missed some stuff, but looking forward to hearing from others if the discussion is still going. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving