372 réponses à ce sujet

[_Plague]

 When really paragon vs renegade is more idealism vs cynicism.

Modifié par Plague, 28 août 2011 - 01:52 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Human dominance isn't an ideal?


Hmm...



Also you missed the G....also the point of the p/r system is so one side can **** when they don't get their way...

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 28 août 2011 - 01:44 .

[KotorEffect3]

Oh boy it's only a matter of time until Saphra finds this thread.

[HogarthHughes 3]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Oh boy it's only a matter of time until Saphra finds this thread.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Without a sense of realism the choices lose a lot of their impact.

Oh and ditto on what Saphra said, just to be marginally on-topic.

[TheOptimist]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Oh boy it's only a matter of time until Saphra finds this thread.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Without a sense of realism the choices lose a lot of their impact.

Well played, KotorEffect3.

[ItsThat01Guy]

People need to validate their beliefs and opinions.

They will use any argument, no matter how shallow or unrelated, if it makes their opinion seem more important.

If we're talking about "realism," we don't know what choices would be better, because the events of Mass Effect have never happened. We don't even know if a Paragon or Renegade Shepard could even defeat the Reapers. But Bioware writes the story, so we can win. And Bioware gave us the Paragon/Renegade system, so people are going to argue about which one is better in any way that they can.

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 28 août 2011 - 02:06 .

[Sisterofshane]

@ OP, if we are so concerned, why bring realism into any discussion? We are talking about a game that is set in a fictional, technologically advanced future.

I can be idealistic/cynical and still make realistic choices as regarding my conduct. That's essentially what the dialogue system does, and the morality system allows us to build our character. The two are tied together, but not necessarily dependent upon one another.

[KotorEffect3]

Paragon and renegade are about methods and approaches to the same problems and often the paragon and renegade have the same objectives they just differ on how they are going to achieve those objectives. The paragon tends to think of long term consequences not just for humanity but for the galaxy as a whole, while the renegade tends to focus on the more immediate short term consequences.

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 28 août 2011 - 02:15 .

[ItsThat01Guy]

Saphra Deden wrote...

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

If we're talking about "realism," we don't know what choices would be better, because the events of Mass Effect have never happened.

We can use your brains and apply real-life to the Mass Effect universe to decide what makes the most sense. It's not hard.

We can make questionably accurate predictions based on vaguely similar situations in real life to maybe get a slightly better idea of what could happen in Mass Effect.

In the end, The choice of Paragon or Renegade isn't based on realism. It's based on what Bioware thinks should be the better choice in each situation. If Bioware makes choices based on real life situations, then your argument carries weight. If they don't, then it doesn't.

I don't know what methods Bioware uses to decide in-game consequences. So I can't make an solid argument for or against "realism." Nobody can.

[HogarthHughes 3]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Paragon and renegade are about methods and approaches to the same problems and often the paragon and renegade have the same objectives they just differ on how they are going to achieve those objectives. The paragon tends to think of long term consequences not just for humanity but for the galaxy as a whole, while the renegade tends to focus on the more immediate short term consequences.

I disagree.  For instance the CB decision according to Shepard is purely whether or not he/she adheres to an "ends justify the means" ideology, not the long term consequences of preserving or destroying the Base (not gonna get into whether or not its short-sighted to give Cerberus the Base, as the same argument could easily be made against those who destroy it).  The thought process behind saving or killing the Rachni Queen also looks far ahead at what could become become an enemy or ally.  The "Focus on Sovereign" option may focus on the short term, but the "renegade" option to leave them to die on purpose is essentially a calculated and malicious sacrifice in order to put humanity on top.  I don't necessarily agree with that last one, but I wouldn't call it short sighted.  People who make that decision have a different mind-set than you, rather like TIM (something along the lines of:  Its a dog-eat-dog world out there and we have to do everything possible to advance ourselves over everyone else in order to survive and prosper).

If anything, decisions such as sparing Balak or letting Kasumi keep Keiji's Greybox are centered around the short term "feel good" moral right without taking the potential long term consequences into consideration.  I would hardly call Renegades short-sighted when compared to Paragons.  Sure a Renegade could turn over Lorik's data to Anoleis to get a garage pass, but that same Renegade could just as easily coerced Lorik to testify.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 28 août 2011 - 02:40 .

[ItsThat01Guy]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Paragon and renegade are about methods and approaches to the same problems and often the paragon and renegade have the same objectives they just differ on how they are going to achieve those objectives. The paragon tends to think of long term consequences not just for humanity but for the galaxy as a whole, while the renegade tends to focus on the more immediate short term consequences.

I disagree.  For instance the CB decision according to Shepard is purely whether or not he/she adheres to an "ends justify the means" ideology, not the long term consequences of preserving or destroying the Base.  The thought process behind saving or killing the Rachni Queen also looks far ahead at what could become become an enemy or ally.  The "Focus on Sovereign" option may focus on the short term, but the "renegade" option to leave them to die on purpose is essentially a calculated and malicious sacrifice in order to put humanity on top.  I don't necessarily agree with that last one, but I wouldn't call it short sighted.  People who make that decision have a different mind-set, rather like TIM.

If anything, decisions such as sparing Balak or letting Kasumi keep Keiji's Greybox are centered around the short term "feel good" moral right without taking the potential long term consequences into consideration.  I would hardly call Renegades short-sighted when compared to Paragons.

So you're saying that Paragons do things make them feel good, and Renegades do things that they think will have the best long-term outcome? Correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood.

Personally, I try to simplify it into, "Paragons do what is right. Renegades do what is best." Paragons do what is right based on laws or morals, which can steer them away from the correct choice to make, because it is "morally questionable" or "against the law." Renegades make choices based on what they think will have the best outcome, which can also backfire because they can't see the future and might be wrong or they might not have enough knowledge to make a sound decision.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Paragon and renegade are about methods and approaches to the same problems and often the paragon and renegade have the same objectives they just differ on how they are going to achieve those objectives. The paragon tends to think of long term consequences not just for humanity but for the galaxy as a whole, while the renegade tends to focus on the more immediate short term consequences.

I disagree.  For instance the CB decision according to Shepard is purely whether or not he/she adheres to an "ends justify the means" ideology, not the long term consequences of preserving or destroying the Base.  The thought process behind saving or killing the Rachni Queen also looks far ahead at what could become become an enemy or ally.  The "Focus on Sovereign" option may focus on the short term, but the "renegade" option to leave them to die on purpose is essentially a calculated and malicious sacrifice in order to put humanity on top.  I don't necessarily agree with that last one, but I wouldn't call it short sighted.  People who make that decision have a different mind-set, rather like TIM.

If anything, decisions such as sparing Balak or letting Kasumi keep Keiji's Greybox are centered around the short term "feel good" moral right without taking the potential long term consequences into consideration.  I would hardly call Renegades short-sighted when compared to Paragons.

So you're saying that Paragons do things make them feel good, and Renegades do things that they think will have the best long-term outcome? Correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood.

Personally, I try to simplify it into, "Paragons do what is right. Renegades do what is best." Paragons do what is right based on laws or morals, which can steer them away from the correct choice to make, because it is "morally questionable" or "against the law." Renegades make choices based on what they think will have the best outcome, which can also backfire because they can't see the future and might be wrong or they might not have enough knowledge to make a sound decision.

I disagree, saphra can see the future,and only renegades are ever right.

[ThePwener]

Renegade, in all fairness, is more realistic. Specially with ME1's endgame choice regarding the survival of the entire universe.

[KotorEffect3]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Paragon and renegade are about methods and approaches to the same problems and often the paragon and renegade have the same objectives they just differ on how they are going to achieve those objectives. The paragon tends to think of long term consequences not just for humanity but for the galaxy as a whole, while the renegade tends to focus on the more immediate short term consequences.

I disagree.  For instance the CB decision according to Shepard is purely whether or not he/she adheres to an "ends justify the means" ideology, not the long term consequences of preserving or destroying the Base.  The thought process behind saving or killing the Rachni Queen also looks far ahead at what could become become an enemy or ally.  The "Focus on Sovereign" option may focus on the short term, but the "renegade" option to leave them to die on purpose is essentially a calculated and malicious sacrifice in order to put humanity on top.  I don't necessarily agree with that last one, but I wouldn't call it short sighted.  People who make that decision have a different mind-set, rather like TIM.

If anything, decisions such as sparing Balak or letting Kasumi keep Keiji's Greybox are centered around the short term "feel good" moral right without taking the potential long term consequences into consideration.  I would hardly call Renegades short-sighted when compared to Paragons.

So you're saying that Paragons do things make them feel good, and Renegades do things that they think will have the best long-term outcome? Correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood.

Personally, I try to simplify it into, "Paragons do what is right. Renegades do what is best." Paragons do what is right based on laws or morals, which can steer them away from the correct choice to make, because it is "morally questionable" or "against the law." Renegades make choices based on what they think will have the best outcome, which can also backfire because they can't see the future and might be wrong or they might not have enough knowledge to make a sound decision.

I disagree, saphra can see the future,and only renegades are ever right.

ROFL

[Kaiser Shepard]

You bring realism in to make the decisions depper than choosing between red or blue.

Then again, it seems like BioWare has thrown realism out of the window when they decided the Paragons get to have their cake and eat it, while the Renegades simply get shafted.

[ItsThat01Guy]

@Humanoid_Typhoon

Well then, if we are all wrong, all of us should just stop posting!
Including Saphra, who should be stopping terrorist attacks or solving murders with this amazing superpower. Not pointing out how short-sighted we all are!

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 28 août 2011 - 02:53 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

ItsThat01Guy wrote...

So you're saying that Paragons do things make them feel good, and Renegades do things that they think will have the best long-term outcome? Correct me if I'm wrong or if I misunderstood.

Not at all, both sides can do things that are only concerned with the short term.  A Paragon may blow up the Collector Base regardless of the potential because they are simply unwilling to compromise their morals (or perhaps they think that Cerberus is too untrustworthy).  Of course Paragons are still forced to become rather "grey" in Arrival, but eh sometimes even the most devoted moral absolutists might have to compromise in a position of responsibility.  I just resent the implication that its only Paragons that are concerned about the long-term good of the galaxy (or at least humanity for Renegades).

Personally, I try to simplify it into, "Paragons do what is right. Renegades do what is best." Paragons do what is right based on laws or morals, which can steer them away from the correct choice to make, because it is "morally questionable" or "against the law." Renegades make choices based on what they think will have the best outcome, which can also backfire because they can't see the future and might be wrong or they might not have enough knowledge to make a sound decision.

Generally I think thats how it goes, though there is definite potential (in-game) for straying from "what is best/right" for both sides.  I suppose it largely depends on one's opinion though.  For instance some might feel that it is better for Garrus' long-term well being for him to spare Sidonis, while others could feel the opposite.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 28 août 2011 - 02:57 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

You bring realism in to make the decisions depper than choosing between red or blue.

Then again, it seems like BioWare has thrown realism out of the window when they decided the Paragons get to have their cake and eat it, while the Renegades simply get shafted.

Maybe BW tinks paragons are as stupid as renegades do,and they added that extra dialoogue so the paragon mind could remember making a decision,renegades don't need such accommodations,being so super intelligent and all.

[ItsThat01Guy]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

You bring realism in to make the decisions depper than choosing between red or blue.

Then again, it seems like BioWare has thrown realism out of the window when they decided the Paragons get to have their cake and eat it, while the Renegades simply get shafted.

Maybe BW tinks paragons are as stupid as renegades do,and they added that extra dialoogue so the paragon mind could remember making a decision,renegades don't need such accommodations,being so super intelligent and all.

Ok. Now we're starting to stray from the discussion in favor of insulting each other.

I helped contribute to this, so I would like to apologize to Saphra for the cheap shot. I don't regret thinking it. I regret saying it.

Hopefully, we can keep this a discussion about what role realism plays in the Paragon/Renegade system.

If not, then Inb4 the lock.

Modifié par ItsThat01Guy, 28 août 2011 - 03:09 .

[ThePwener]

Don't encourage Humanoid, he's just looking to spite.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

ThePwener wrote...

Don't encourage Humanoid, he's just looking to spite.

Am I?


But to get back on topic,since it is a work of fiction,realism only need apply when you want it to.

Some want to just have fun,others are serious roleplayers.

To say full paragon or full renegade is blind only means that you yourself are blinded by that morality, I think they are two sides of the same coin, it isn't as clear-cut as good or evil, lawful good or neccesary evil, I don't think renegade is the only way to be pro-human.

And sorry for the cheap shot saphra.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 28 août 2011 - 03:19 .

[ThePwener]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Am I?

Are you?