631 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

My only concern is that, again, Bioware will reward the extremes, and punish the moderates who care little about their bipolar simplistic sense of morality.

[Femlob]

"Decisions that feel right can prove to be harmful".

How's that for producing a lot of noise without actually saying anything of relevance? That's some proper media training right there - politician in the making.

Threads like these (and by "these" I really mean "everything in the history of anything posted on the BSN ever") are the consequence of, and ultimately the problem with, providing fans with fractured data.

People overanalyze information they cannot place in context and subsequently get their panties in a bunch over things they wouldn't give two ****s about if they had the complete game in front of them - this because they'd be too busy playing to worry about petty things like not being able to talk to some dude who caught a Cain slug with his face in the previous game.

You'd think that after two decades the internet would lose its ability to amaze me...

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
So tell me when a decision that gave Renegade points was in fact necessary.

Objectively necessary? None of them so far - that's exactly the problem. Not even objectively expedient towards the greater goal of defeating the Reapers. The Paragons can wriggle out of the hard decisions because they can be sure nothing bad will happen to them as a result. Should the Rachni queen turn out to be hostile or the majority of Rachni indoctrinated, now that would be something I want to see.

I would want to see that even though it wouldn't benefit a single one of my playthroughs - because I always save the queen. I am prepared to live with that consequence for the sake of a universe I can believe in.

BTW, what happened in Arrival was actually a Renegade decision, only we didn't get to make it. The Paragon decision would've been to try to wriggle out of having to kill all those batarians. Because it actually *was* necessary, Bioware didn't design it as a decision so that no Paragon would have to complain for getting his rightly deserved game over screen as a result. Even so, there were Paragons who complained about this setup....

I still have hope for the ME universe
 

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, yes, because the galaxy is now doomed because the Destiny Ascension was saved?

You are meta-gaming. The hallmark of a Paragon player.

To play Renegade is to roleplayer seriously. Your Shepard must always assume victory for the enemy is right around the corner. Renegade Shepard doesn't take chances with the lives of the galaxy. He always ensures that the enemy will not win, no matter the cost.

It's telling that you insist a Renegade decision must award points. It is a very shallow means of looking at the concept.

Arrival was 100% a Renegade decision. The difference is that the developers locked you out of the Paragon option (which would have immediately ended the game). They do this because for some reason they think they need to coddle you. I don't know, maybe they are right. 

I'm really curious to see if any Paragon decisions turn out for the worse in ME3 just so I can see if you are willing to admit you made a mistake or if you'll shift around, lie, complain, or shift blame to someone else.

I can defend my decisions purely on the logic I employed to make them. Beyond that the results are beyond my control. Your decisions however are only defensible if they continue to succeed, despite the odds.

More of a Clever Hans than anything else.

To me, all this says is that Renegades can't tell the difference between what's expedient and what's actually necessary. I have, in fact, used logic to defend my choices, it's just that you don't accept it as valid. Which is fine; my results speak for themselves. Either Paragons are better at assessing situations than Renegades are in general, or they're so lucky that it counts as a natural resource they'd be foolish not to use.

Also, the Paragon option in Arrival was to warn the batarians so that they could evacuate and the impact of the explosion greatly reduced. It didn't work, but it didn't make things any worse either.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Paragade is no less simplistic than either pure Paragon or Renegade.

You think it makes for a well rounded character but I say it just makes for a wildly inconsistent one.
 

There is no necessary inconsistency except to those who have a narrow or bipolar view.

[Wulfram]

I think a lot of the problem with the Renegade path is that in reality most people aren't actually renegades - they're actually sort of nice.

A true renegade, as depicted by Bioware, would be angered at having allowed the Council to continue it's domination. A true renegade would be disgusted to meet Fist again, when they could have brought him to justice. A true renegade would be alarmed at the rapid progress of the Rachni, and wonder if his mistake had doomed humanity's destiny to dominate the galaxy

[TheOptimist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, yes, because the galaxy is now doomed because the Destiny Ascension was saved?

You are meta-gaming. The hallmark of a Paragon player.

Funny, I could swear it was Renegade players complaining that Paragon choices got so called extra benefits or that Paragon choices have no downside.

To play Renegade is to roleplayer seriously. Your Shepard must always assume victory for the enemy is right around the corner. Renegade Shepard doesn't take chances with the lives of the galaxy. He always ensures that the enemy will not win, no matter the cost.

Because insulting your crew and punching a reporter in the face ensure victory. Right.

It's telling that you insist a Renegade decision must award points. It is a very shallow means of looking at the concept.

Arrival was 100% a Renegade decision. The difference is that the developers locked you out of the Paragon option (which would have immediately ended the game). They do this because for some reason they think they need to coddle you. I don't know, maybe they are right. 

You can keep believing that if you want, but my Shep was all set to press that button because those Batarians were dead no matter what I did.  They just didn't know it yet.

I'm really curious to see if any Paragon decisions turn out for the worse in ME3 just so I can see if you are willing to admit you made a mistake or if you'll shift around, lie, complain, or shift blame to someone else.

I can defend my decisions purely on the logic I employed to make them. Beyond that the results are beyond my control. Your decisions however are only defensible if they continue to succeed, despite the odds.

More of a Clever Hans than anything else.

I can defend any Paragon decision logically, and I have no regrets.

[Ieldra]

@Saphra:
I disagree. The relationship between "should yield the better outcome" and Paragon/Renegade is not one-sided. There are plainly decisions where a more diplomatic approach is to be preferred, even if those aren't the big storyline decisions. For instance, being a jerk to your superiors is generally inadvisable, and friendly persuasion, if you can do it, earns you the goodwill of the other instead of enmity and is, as a rule, to be preferred.

Co-operation is usually regarded as the better option because it usually IS the better option, all things considered. It's only when the cost becomes too great - as in saving the Council - that the alternative gains justification. Using this philosophy in a war scenario where high-risk decisions with potentially great costs are commonplace would usually result in a "mixed" - i.e. neutral-ish with slight Paragon/Renegade leanings - character. Which is why I think this is indeed the most realistic. The game punishes me for it though. That I don't like.

@Xilizhra:
I think my answer to your question is more valid than Saphra's.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2011 - 05:35 .

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

To me, all this says is that Renegades can't tell the difference between what's expedient and what's actually necessary.

Renegades can't predict the future so they play it safe.

Paragons don't weigh the possible consequences of their decision, they just follow their moral compass.

Actually, you can predict the future, just not with 100% accuracy. Though if Renegades can't at all, that explains a great deal and fills in the end of my argument rather well.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You are meta-gaming. The hallmark of a Paragon player.

To play Renegade is to roleplayer seriously. Your Shepard must always assume victory for the enemy is right around the corner. Renegade Shepard doesn't take chances with the lives of the galaxy. He always ensures that the enemy will not win, no matter the cost.

Renegade Shepard is also narrow-minded as hell. Always thinking for the moment and never the future.

By the way, killing and destroying everything that might be a threat isn't roleplaying. That's playing it safe by sheer ignorance while not thinking of the advantages/consequences at all.

Also, for being a "badass", Renegade Shepard never takes any risks whatsoever, and will receive almost no rewards/penalties for it. So don't come and whine if you don't get anything for your Renegade actions.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Saphra:
I disagree. The relationship between "should yield the better outcome" and Paragon/Renegade is not one-sided. There are plainly decisions where a more diplomatic approach is to be preferred, even if those aren't the big storyline decisions. For instance, being a jerk to your superiors is generally inadvisable, and friendly persuasion, if you can do it, earns you the goodwill of the other instead of enmity and is, as a rule, to be preferred.

The big decisions are the ones I'm talking about. I don't care about the little stuff.

In most of those, I pick the renegade option. Except 2, one was with the hope that I acquire the data but the game didn't let me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 05:36 .

[JGDD]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The big decisions are the ones I'm talking about. I don't care about the little stuff.

How do you view the Heretic rewrite/destroy decision?

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


Actually, you can predict the future, just not with 100% accuracy. Though if Renegades can't at all, that explains a great deal and fills in the end of my argument rather well.

You know what I mean, smartass.

Renegades can't be certain what the future will bring, so they play it safe. They eliminate the greater risk, the worst possible future. Paragons try for the best future, but in the process they leave open the possibility for something very bad.

I know of no Renegade choice that truly eliminates the worst possible future.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

I know of no Renegade choice that truly eliminates the worst possible future.

The Rachni.
It only takes indoctrinating the Queen, and all her kids would be used against us.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I know of no Renegade choice that truly eliminates the worst possible future.

The Rachni.
It only takes indoctrinating the Queen, and all her kids would be used against us.

Saphra doesn't believe they were indoctrinated.

[Ieldra]

Wulfram wrote...
I think a lot of the problem with the Renegade path is that in reality most people aren't actually renegades - they're actually sort of nice.

A true renegade, as depicted by Bioware, would be angered at having allowed the Council to continue it's domination. A true renegade would be disgusted to meet Fist again, when they could have brought him to justice. A true renegade would be alarmed at the rapid progress of the Rachni, and wonder if his mistake had doomed humanity's destiny to dominate the galaxy

Yes. Which is why I don't talk about Renegade decisions in general, only those which could reasonably be said to be pragmatic. Unfortunately, those tend to be the big decisions that dominate the storyline.

As I said, I don't want to be a sociopathic jerk, but neither do I want to be a naive goody-two-shoes. I want to be a character with believable strategic insight, spiced up with the occasional badassery or empathy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I know of no Renegade choice that truly eliminates the worst possible future.

The Rachni.
It only takes indoctrinating the Queen, and all her kids would be used against us.

Saphra doesn't believe they were indoctrinated.

Even if he / she doesn't, it's not impossible that the reapers can indoctrinate a queen, even if they didn't in the past.

[outmane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

outmane wrote...
The problem doesnt seem to be the renegade decisions themselves but the fact that many players tend to regret them after. Its the problem of hindsight so it understandably cant be avoided. Once you know someone else had a better outcome in their playthrough you start regretting something that made sense to you in the first place. Even if your Shepard might not.

Best way to appreciate your game is probably to stick with your Shepard point of view. My renegade Shep prevented a Thorian outbreak by killing the Feros colonists and is happy about it. Searching for the optimal outcome will usually only end up in being convinced that you wouldnt have done it thatway if you were on the dev team.

Only real problem I see with playing renegade is having less content. Instead of having ppl come up and thank you for saving them, there should have been angry ppl asking for explanations or trying to kill you.

No, that's not the problem. Not for me anyway. The problem is that I can't believe in a universe where the morally right path always yields the best outcomes in term of the overall goal (here: defeating the Reapers). As soon as I realize the pattern from what other people tell me, I instantly go "That's not how things work". Suspension of disbelief in halfway believable outcomes is gone. I'm living in a fairy-tale universe, not in one of ambiguous choices and uncertain outcomes.

I will not be disappointed with unsatisfactory results of any single decision. Uncertainty is part of life, and do not expect to always be right. A pattern of disadvantageous outcomes for Renegade decisions, that's another thing. That's a design flaw in the universe. For the "Renegade" philosophy wouldn't exist in our minds if it didn't occasionally yield better outcomes, especially since it goes against conventional morality.

Just as some other ppl cant believe moraly wrong choices will always bring the best outcome and I guess both sides are right. Problably the most 'realistic' path is a paragade/renegon path. But ME is just a canevas for you to write a story. Why be frustrated about what other ppl see in their playthrough? 

Like I said killing the Feros colonists is a good decision because it prevents them from spreading the Thorian spores around. It feels like a bad decision only when you compare it to the other outcome from hindsight. Shepard will never know he lost an ally by killing the Rachnii Queen because he clensed the world of a possible threat and is damn proud of it. Hes got no crystal ball like we do to see what he missed.

What im saying is comparing paths is a bad idea because they are contradictory in the fact that both are designed to bring the the player to a happy outcome at the end. They are not made to be realistic or offer a moral compass. 

If you believe that sacrifices have to be made to get victory you can write that story. If you feel like only the higher moral ground can save the universe then you can write that one too. You can also write the story of how a perfect **** saved the universe by killing everything on his way. Of course, your story will probably be more interesting to read at the end then a classic fairy tale. That doesnt mean the game shouldnt let fairytale lovers write their fairytale. You and I dotn have to read them.