337 réponses à ce sujet

[Another_Golden_Dragon]

GodWood wrote...

Another_Golden_Dragon wrote...
I'm not saying that Bioware will do this (or anything like this), but for working harder, shouldn't you get greater rewards?

The paragon choice rarely requires the player to work harder. It's simply a matter of do you pick P and win or do pick R and get less content and worse outcomes.

Anyways in the sitution you just put forth that's not even the paragon 'working harder' as keeping everyone alive on the SM was not a paragon nor renegade action. And the final ending of the scenario that you dubbed 'the paragon ending' shouldn't have the 'best consequences' if Bioware wants to even try to maintain some semblance of real-world-moral greyness'. Instead I'd have it as they work together against the Reaper threat (a plus) but down the line the species resentment of one another rears its ugly head, hostilities begin and war breaks out between the two.

That's what makes a believable setting.

NO, Keeping everyone alive actually WAS a Paragon/Renegade action.  If, after you are told about the Derelict Reaper, you go straight there (like Jacob says), and then go straight into the Suicide Mission, it actually becomes a SUICIDE MISSION.  But doing a few Loyalty Missions, thinking things thru (at least on the first run without metagaming) for the other leaders, IE WORKING harder, you get better results.  Getting the Reaper IFF, then Doing more than one LM also has consequences, since the crew gets killed.

The Paragon/Renegade comes more from choices than actions, true.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I'd love to hear Bioware explain their views toward the major Renegade/Neutral choices and consequences thusfar... hear their take on it.
It would be interesting hearing how they navigate over/fill in the plot holes and gaps.

[Seboist]

Swampthing500 wrote...

My personal opinion is that Renegade vs Paragon was never a case of wrong choice vs right choice, but a philosophical/moral approach that resulted in different, but never negative, outcomes.

Paragon/Renegae was always about solving situations in different ways.

Paragon choices benefiting in the most contrived manner possible(Balak in ME3) or getting the same benefits as Renegade in the interlude(Turian-Human arms race becoming choice neutral in CDN) paint a different picture. Then there's the issue of Renegade being completely invalidated like the Reapers pulling another Rachni Queen out of their asses.

Paragon = Winner takes all with no sacrifice involved.

Renegade =  Someone who shoots themselves in the foot and ends up looking like a fool for no good reason.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Arcian wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Saving the Council was "morally ideal" but "ethically wreckless" and put the entire galaxy (including the Council) at risk.

My choice to save the Council was an assessment of probability and not an act of morality. I came to the conclusion that it was possible to both save the DA and stop Sovereign in time. That is because I'm not driven by paralyzing fear and paranoia like GodWood and the TIM cult.

It actually was a fact that Sovereign would regain control of the station at any moment during the time you make the decision... your squadmate isn't even sure you can stop Sovereign in time by sending them in right away.

In the end, Sovereign waited for you... which is well... convenient = )

Also note that in the game, Shepard (if you choose to save the Council) takes the stance of saving them... "no matter what the cost."

...."No matter what the cost"... Ethically wreckless.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 décembre 2011 - 05:16 .

[GodWood]

[quote]Another_Golden_Dragon wrote...
NO, Keeping everyone alive actually WAS a Paragon/Renegade action.  If, after you are told about the Derelict Reaper, you go straight there (like Jacob says), and then go straight into the Suicide Mission, it actually becomes a SUICIDE MISSION.  But doing a few Loyalty Missions, thinking things thru (at least on the first run without metagaming) for the other leaders, IE WORKING harder, you get better results.[/quote]No, whether you attack straight away or prepare is not a paragon/renegade decision.

Watch[/quote]

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Arcian wrote...

@Gogeta: First of all, it is spelled "reckless". Drop the w.

No. 


I know how I spelled it.  The "w" stays.

Secondly, the squadmate's assessment of the time Sovereign required was a wild guess. The necessity of closed station arms suggested to me that the process takes a lot of time. As we all know, I was right. And for all we know, the process could have taken hours. Sovereign did not expect Shepard to come, and did not expect Saren to fail either. Sovereign's odds were bad right from the start.

On the contrary, Saren didn't think Shepard would make it "in time."   But he did expect him to come.  Secondly, that wasn't a wild guess... even Vigil tells you that Sovereign's block was only temporary and would not stop Sovereign.. it would only give them a possible chance to stop him.  The closed arms protected him from the outside Geth battle and allowed him peace and quiet to do what he had to do.

And again, the effort is to stop Sovereign "before he regains control of the station."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 décembre 2011 - 06:44 .

[Homebound]

i dont get why the renegades are complaining. Sure there are moments when renegade actions r necessary in the game, like the renegadeinterrupt for that merc in samara's mission. but if you treat people poorly, dont be surprised when things dont exactly go your way.

[GodWood]

Hellbound555 wrote...
i dont get why the renegades are complaining. Sure there are moments when renegade actions r necessary in the game, like the renegadeinterrupt for that merc in samara's mission. but if you treat people poorly, dont be surprised when things dont exactly go your way.

We're talking about MAJOR RENEGADE DECISIONS, none of which are just "hurr durr Ima treet people mean" like many people like to dismiss them as.

[AgitatedLemon]

GodWood wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...
i dont get why the renegades are complaining. Sure there are moments when renegade actions r necessary in the game, like the renegadeinterrupt for that merc in samara's mission. but if you treat people poorly, dont be surprised when things dont exactly go your way.

We're talking about MAJOR RENEGADE DECISIONS, none of which are just "hurr durr Ima treet people mean" like many people like to dismiss them as.

They dismiss them as such because a good deal of them ARE just being stupidly mean to people.

A small handful are actually logical choices concerning big decisions, but a lot of them are just needless cruelty.

[GodWood]

AgitatedLemon wrote...
They dismiss them as such because a good deal of them ARE just being stupidly mean to people.

A small handful are actually logical choices concerning big decisions, but a lot of them are just needless cruelty.

Oh please do tell which MAJOR RENEGADE decisions are just stupidly mean.

Modifié par GodWood, 26 décembre 2011 - 07:13 .

[AgitatedLemon]

GodWood wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...
They dismiss them as such because a good deal of them ARE just being stupidly mean to people.

A small handful are actually logical choices concerning big decisions, but a lot of them are just needless cruelty.

Oh please do tell which MAJOR RENEGADE decisions are just stupidly mean.

Not sure if you read my post.

Most renegade decisions ARE just being mean and cruel.

However, most of the ones involving major, game changing decisions aren't. they hold some semblance of logic in the choices presented.

[AlexXIV]

Gogeta, if you complain about the Paragon/Renegade system in general I agree. I don't like it much either. But funny enough you complain about Renegade not getting something for being a jerk. When you said you are Paragade it did it for me. I think that counts for many others as well. This is not about Paragon vs Renegade, this is about Paragon vs Paragade. The people complaining are not even Renegades, they are half-and-half. So you wanted a neutral option to succeed, now I get it.

I don't know why they made the Renegade/Paragon system, probably a remnant from KotOR. It would be better to not put a morale color on decisions and let people themselves make this judgement. Which doesn't mean that every decision shouldn't have a proper consequense. Intimidate and charm should be player skill, not based on your actions. Because there can be a charming bad guy and there can also be a rude good guy.

I am a bit baffled that you don't see though that the whole ME2 plot is a renegade plot. Probably because you ain't a renegade. You are too much Paragon to appreciate it as such. It is not about choices you have, it is about the story, the plot, which puts you in one boat with Cerberus which is in itself a renegade organisation.

So why do you guys argue in Renegade vs Paragade threads when you should actually make threads to criticize the Paragon/Renegade system in respect to the neutral choice. For those who don't follow one path or the other. I didn't think so at first but probably the guy who said you are not real Renegades was right. There is no real Renegade complaining about Renegade choices. You're Paragades who dislike how your neutral or renegade decisions are handled.

Personally I am also somewhere in the middle. Between Paragon and Renegade. But I make sure the big decisions (in which you don't even have a neutral choice, like the CB, the Rachni, Geth, Council, etc.) always to pick Paragon. That's the only difference, you can't decide for renegade or paragon in these choices. My advice, in ME pick a side and stick with it. In DA it would be easier to jump from one side to the other, but ME is by nature rather straight because they use the Paragon/Renegade system to begin with. I personally think that whenever a game makes a morale statement on player choices it is a dick move. Sadly in ME Bioware have chosen to do exactly that.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[GodWood]

AgitatedLemon wrote...
Not sure if you read my post.

Most renegade decisions ARE just being mean and cruel.

However, most of the ones involving major, game changing decisions aren't. they hold some semblance of logic in the choices presented.

Oh, ok, that's better. Although it is wildly exaggerated how 'mean' and 'cruel' the minor renegade decisions are. The one's that I'd deem retarded (eg, punching the reporter) usually have another renegade alternative that is perfectly acceptable.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Gogeta, if you complain about the Paragon/Renegade system in general I agree. I don't like it much either.

Coolness, then welcome aboard. 

But funny enough you complain about Renegade not getting something for being a jerk. When you said you are Paragade it did it for me. I think that counts for many others as well. This is not about Paragon vs Renegade, this is about Paragon vs Paragade. The people complaining are not even Renegades, they are half-and-half. So you wanted a neutral option to succeed, now I get it.

I don't know why they made the Renegade/Paragon system, probably a remnant from KotOR. It would be better to not put a morale color on decisions and let people themselves make this judgement. Which doesn't mean that every decision shouldn't have a proper consequense. Intimidate and charm should be player skill, not based on your actions. Because there can be a charming bad guy and there can also be a rude good guy.

I am a bit baffled that you don't see though that the whole ME2 plot is a renegade plot. Probably because you ain't a renegade. You are too much Paragon to appreciate it as such. It is not about choices you have, it is about the story, the plot, which puts you in one boat with Cerberus which is in itself a renegade organisation.

So why do you guys argue in Renegade bs Paragade threads when you should actually make threads to criticize the Paragon/Renegade system in respect to the neutral choice. For those who don't follow one path or the other. I didn't think so at first but probably the guy who said you are not real Renegades was right. There is no real Renegade complaining about Renegade choices. You're Paragades who dislike how your neutral or renegade decisions are handled.

Personally I am also somewhere in the middle. Between Paragon and Renegade. But I make sure the big decisions (in which you don't even have a neutral choice, like the CB, the Rachni, Geth, Council, etc.) always to pick Paragon. That's the only difference, you can't decide for renegade or paragon in these choices. My advice, in ME pick a side and stick with it. In DA it would be easier to jump from one side to the other, but ME is by nature rather straight because they use the Paragon/Renegade system to begin with. I personally think that whenever a game makes a morale statement on player choices it is a dick move. Sadly in ME Bioware have chosen to do exactly that.

Dr. Gregory House is a jerk but most of the time his methods work better than anyone else.  Same for Jack Bauer.  Being a jerk has nothing to do with favoritism towards a particular kind of decision exclusively. 

This all boils down to me wanting to look at all the choices without knowing the "blue button" is going to provide the most positive results out of every single other alternative... every single time... regardless of the situation or what's at stake.

There simply is no "tough choice" with that kind of system.

[AgitatedLemon]

GodWood wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...
Not sure if you read my post.

Most renegade decisions ARE just being mean and cruel.

However, most of the ones involving major, game changing decisions aren't. they hold some semblance of logic in the choices presented.

Oh, ok, that's better. Although it is wildly exaggerated how 'mean' and 'cruel' the minor renegade decisions are. The one's that I'd deem retarded (eg, punching the reporter) usually have another renegade alternative that is perfectly acceptable.

I punched her anyway just because it's fun to watch her get knocked on her @ss, and she was a bit of a bi*ch.

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Dr. Gregory House is a jerk but most of the time his methods work better than anyone else.  Same for Jack Bauer.  Being a jerk has nothing to do with favoritism towards a particular kind of decision exclusively. 

This all boils down to me wanting to look at all the choices without knowing the "blue button" is going to provide the most positive results out of every single other alternative... every single time... regardless of the situation or what's at stake.

There simply is no "tough choice" with that kind of system.

Well yes I would also like that you don't have just 3 choices of which you know the upper is 'good', the middle is neutral and the lower is 'evil'. I liked how in DA:O you had 3-5 choices in dialogue and you had to figure out yourself if it is nice or rude, good or evil, charming or intimidating. And consequences should play out according to common sense, not whether you are nice or not. Actually I personally prefer very much the 'Clint Eastwood' or 'Bruce Willis' approach. They usually play tough hardass characters with a good heart. I guess that's why I prefer to play femShep anyway, because she is rather rough for a woman, while maleShep is rather soft for a man if you play Paragon.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 décembre 2011 - 07:39 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Dr. Gregory House is a jerk but most of the time his methods work better than anyone else.  Same for Jack Bauer.  Being a jerk has nothing to do with favoritism towards a particular kind of decision exclusively. 

This all boils down to me wanting to look at all the choices without knowing the "blue button" is going to provide the most positive results out of every single other alternative... every single time... regardless of the situation or what's at stake.

There simply is no "tough choice" with that kind of system.

Well yes I would also like that you don't have just 3 choices of which you know the upper is 'good', the middle is neutral and the lower is 'evil'. I liked how in DA:O you had 3-5 choices in dialogue and you had to figure out yourself if it is nice or rude, good or evil, charming or intimidating. And consequences should play out according to common sense, not whether you are nice or not. Actually I personally prefer very much the 'Clint Eastwood' or 'Bruce Willis' approach. They usually play tough hardass characters with a good heart. I guess that's why I prefer to play femShep anyway, because she is rather rough for a woman, while maleShep is rather soft for a man if you play Paragon.

Yeah, that's also another source of the beef... as Bioware claimed that Renegades aren't "evil" so if you feel they are, they failed you a bit there...  I don't think anyone views House or Bauer as evil characters.

[CSunkyst]

Risk the Galaxy??? Choosing to let the Destiny Ascension perish and waiting to attack Sovereign is quite possibly the DUMBEST choice you could make. There is a giant Geth fleet in play here, how does it make any sense to try attacking Sovereign with a giant dangerous fleet of Geth battleships at your unguarded rear? Geth ships that are now no longer distracted by the Destiny Ascension, and already have you caught in the crossfire. The galaxy should have been doomed when the Renegades caused their fleet to get obliterated by the combined firepower of Sovereign and the Geth fleet.

Did the proud and mighty warrior Renegades fail at basic tactics 101??? You're going to HAVE to deal with that Geth fleet, it's far better to do it by surprise when their attention is elsewhere.

I'll agree there are sane reasons to keep the base, but I'll admit I was meta gaming, and I resented the fact that my Paragon Shep was FORCED to work with Cerberus with almost NO hesitation despite the fact that it was completely out of character for my Paragon sole survivor (so much for that Paragon bias) and so there was NO WAY I was going to end ME2 as TIM's little b****.

[chaosomegas]

to answer is question one start at beginning me universe there was 2 races shephards they great friends on till they a new race of all female both shephards like this new race and started fighting thus beginning the great shephard war because there only be one shephard . lol;)

[AgitatedLemon]

chaosomegas wrote...

to answer is question one start at beginning me universe there was 2 races shephards they great friends on till they a new race of all female both shephards like this new race and started fighting thus beginning the great shephard war because there only be one shephard . lol;)

What?

[Bleachrude]

How come it is not seen as a slap in the face of paragons to have to work with cerebus and be ignored by the council yet renegades think they got the short end of the stick?

[GodWood]

Bleachrude wrote...
How come it is not seen as a slap in the face of paragons to have to work with cerebus and be ignored by the council yet renegades think they got the short end of the stick?

Because we never even got to meet the Council, have less content and have all of our decisions either invalidated or backfire in ME3.