133 réponses à ce sujet

[HogarthHughes 3]

TurianRenegade wrote...

I think leaving Miranda and/or Jacob alive in ME2 will cause them to have a crisis of conscience in ME3 since Cerberus has turned on Shepard and at some point they'll have to choose between killing Shepard, or turning their backs on the Illusive Man despite everything he's done for them.

 
Jacob and Miranda are perfectly content to turn their backs on TIM if Shepard destroys the Collector Base.  Jacob was never that loyal to begin with, but he could make more of a difference with Cerberus so he joined up.  Miranda is quick to betray TIM (regardless of "loyalty" to Shepard) because of the moral implications of preserving the Collector Base.

[CptBomBom00]

Sethan_1 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

I know, right? Where'd they get the stupid idea that the good guy option should have the more peaceful and happy result?

Being naive and trusting while taking gigantic risks doesn't always result in happy results.

Both good points here.  "The good guy option" should result in more peaceful and happy results most of the time... but that presumes the good guy is also going about choosing those options sensibly.

Being "naive and trusting" should backfire at least some of the time.  We did actually see one case of that in ME2, if Shepard lets Elanora go, after being told previously that Eclipse mercs had to commit a murder to earn their uniform.  Killing her is the renegade choice - which seems odd here given that the alternative is letting a murderer go free.

Yeah like its said above,for me it was wierd, because that volus told shepard about eclipse and we didn't have paragon interrupt thing only rege so in ME3, like on the trial there should these interruptions but both sides rege and para should apper.

Modifié par CptBomBom00, 05 octobre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Sethan_1]

Seboist wrote...

That a race of ultra-violent man-turtles like the Krogan who love war,killing and mutiliation is considered a Paragon ally and not a Renegade one shows what a joke the system is.

To be fair, the Krogan Shepherd deals with the most in ME1 and 2 (Wrex and Grunt) are atypical Krogan.  Wrex was trying to unite his people and go for the kinder, gentler Krogan bit before he met Shepard.  Grunt had been taught by a Krogan with more typical values, but rejected that teaching and decided to find his own way.

Seboist wrote... It's also nonsensical how a Renegade Shepard who killed the council, the Rachni and the Heretic Geth isn't able to build up her reputation to make allies with the "outlaw" non-citadel races like the Krogan,Quarians,etc. Instead we're forced down a purely humancentric path and we can't even have Cerberus to back us up.

If there had been an option to ally with Weyrloc instead of Urdnot, I could see this getting you points with the Krogan. 

The Quarians are more reasonable people - which means that letting the Council die isn't going to score any points with them.  Either you were making a purely pragmatic decision (in which case it doesn't matter), or you let them die for personal/political reasons - which makes you dangerous, since you could just as easily do the same to them.

The Quarians also probably wouldn't care about the Rachni.

Destroying the Heretic Geth should get you points with the Quarians, ONLY IF you don't make a point of there being the division between the Heretics and regular Geth (in the same vein, rewriting the Heretics might get you points with the Quarians if you DO make the distinction clear to them and convince them to sue for peace with the Geth). 

It would have been really interesting if there had been an option to keep the virus and turn it over to the Quarians for modification (granted, you'd probably have to kill Legion to do this).

Seboist wrote...Paragon is "winner takes all" without fear of alienating allies. She can spare the Rachni without pissing off the Krogan, empower the Geth without a word from the Quarians and be a stooge for the Council who has screwed over all these people without a care in the world.

In both ME1 and 2, Renegade choices almost always result in immediate gratification but longer term negatives, while Paragon choices almost always result in short and longer term benefits.

It would make the series more interesting IMO, if the ME3 consequences of some of both Paragon and Renegade choices turn out to be other than we were led to believe in the previous games.

That's the reason I made this thread - to explore how that could reasonably happen and why.

[diamondedge]

If it was up to me, I'd drop the whole Paragon/Renegade system because it's as annoying as it is outdated.
Why can't there just be "decisions" without you knowing "if I pick this one I'll get more good guys score, yay!" \\o/

Needless to say, for us completionists one or the other extreme is pretty much a must.

[TurianRenegade]

I don't think there's really anything wrong with the morality system, although I think it could use more shades of grey similar to The Witcher to make things a little more interesting and give people a better reason to truly think about the decisions they make.

[Sethan_1]

TurianRenegade wrote...

I don't think there's really anything wrong with the morality system, although I think it could use more shades of grey similar to The Witcher to make things a little more interesting and give people a better reason to truly think about the decisions they make.

If there are going to be more shades of grey, or removing the morality system, the dialog choices need to be spelled out in more detail on the screen - not just two or three words that often don't cover the gist of the actual dialog and often aren't even included in the actual dialog.

[diamondedge]

@Sethan_1: I agree.

If not that, then they would need to be more careful about the "summaries" they write, because sometimes Shepard says completely odd things compared to what it indicated in the wheel. That "Love? I'm just trying to get you into bed" first comes to mind.

Also, a time limited decisions!

Modifié par diamondedge, 05 octobre 2011 - 07:27 .

[TurianRenegade]

Sethan_1 wrote...

TurianRenegade wrote...

I don't think there's really anything wrong with the morality system, although I think it could use more shades of grey similar to The Witcher to make things a little more interesting and give people a better reason to truly think about the decisions they make.

If there are going to be more shades of grey, or removing the morality system, the dialog choices need to be spelled out in more detail on the screen - not just two or three words that often don't cover the gist of the actual dialog and often aren't even included in the actual dialog.

I see your point but I don't think they need to be spelled out entirely because then people would just complain that the game is doing the thinking for them. I do believe that the choices presented need to fit within the context of the conversation and possibly hint at what could happen, but they need to leave some room for the player to interpret what could potentially happen if the choices are picked.

[diamondedge]

because then people would just complain that the game is doing the thinking for them.

Sorry, what?

You mean 1st wheel= paragon, 2nd wheel= neutral and 3rd wheel= renegade allow for ANY sort of brain stretching?

[Sethan_1]

Another thing I'd like to see in ME3 is some missions with the specific goal of reversing the effects of some decisions made in the earlier games.

So for instance, if you saved the Rachni Queen, and she ends up working for the Reapers, you have an option to go bombard their homeworld from orbit.

...or having allowed Shiala to live, you discover in ME3 that she is still indoctrinated and working for the Reapers - so you get to go kill her.

...or you have an option in ME3 to broker a peace between the Quarians and the Geth - one which is more difficult (but not impossible) if you steered the Quarians towards war in ME2. ...or initiate a war if you had steered them towards peace.

[Bigdoser]

I personally don't see each choice as paragon and renegade I just see a major decision as a choice nothing more. Playthroughs are alot more fun for me if I don't categorize choices into paragon or renegade imo. I personally believe going either exteremes will have their own problems in me3.

[Sharn01]

I am sure the paragon/renegade system will be around for ME3 though I hope it goes out the window after that. I was happy to see decisions not permanently influence your character in DA:O, to bad they went right back to a paragon/renegade system in DA2, though it did have a viable third path, but DA2 failed in a lot more ways then just that.

[Bigdoser]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am sure the paragon/renegade system will be around for ME3 though I hope it goes out the window after that. I was happy to see decisions not permanently influence your character in DA:O, to bad they went right back to a paragon/renegade system in DA2, though it did have a viable third path, but DA2 failed in a lot more ways then just that.

I don't remeber any paragon or renegade system in DA2 DA2 was not as good as DAO but unlike mass effect DA2 allows you role play more easier imo.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 05 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Bigdoser wrote...
I don't remeber any paragon or renegade system in DA2 DA2 was not as good as DAO but unlike mass effect DA2 allows you role play more easier imo.

I don't think so as DA2 is a game where you mostly choose "how" you says things instead of "what" you says.
In Mass Effect you choose "what" you say/do and sometimes how you says things (mostly during Paragon/Renegade things).

[Bigdoser]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...
I don't remeber any paragon or renegade system in DA2 DA2 was not as good as DAO but unlike mass effect DA2 allows you role play more easier imo.

I don't think so as DA2 is a game where you mostly choose "how" you says things instead of "what" you says.
In Mass Effect you choose "what" you say/do and sometimes how you says things (mostly during Paragon/Renegade things).

Hmmm I can see what you mean.. did not think about it that way before.

[Nightdragon8]

sounds to me more like people are wanting paragon choices to always go bad, thus somehow make renegade choices "correct" choices.

Some of the choices I dont really see a longterm issue.

Balak (asteroid terrorist guy maybe) joins the reapers to kill humans. Sort of thing.

Letting that doctor live at the cloning facility (already regretted it and wished i could have "corrected" that mistake during ME2 plz let us correct that mistake in ME3)

Rachni queen don't really see a huge issue there, unless she gets indocertnated

Alot of the others are too minor of people to really do anything for or against you.

Kasumi's greybox data... not really sure, could be bad but if she hides it well enough wouldn't matter.

[Sethan_1]

I don't figure Balak will backfire too much - once the Reapers start in, it seems unlikely there will be much terrorism per se - its just going to be a straight out war. So if Balak is involved it will be in that capacity, and in a war he could be replaced by any Batarian. It annoys me somewhat that we were railroaded into letting him get completely away or letting the hostages die (I should have ben able to break out the hostages beforehand or Normandy should have been able to take him out as soon as I disarmed the bombs).

If it turns out that Kasumi's data says that the Alliance knew about Sovereign before Saren found it - then that could be a big deal if it comes to light.

[Nizzemancer]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

I know, right? Where'd they get the stupid idea that the good guy option should have the more peaceful and happy result?

Being naive and trusting while taking gigantic risks doesn't always result in happy results.

In a Bioware game it does.

In DA2, siding with the templars (basically the "renegade" choice as I see it) got you to be Viscount. You even got an achievement for it, while the trusting pro-mage Hawke got ran out of town. So Bioware doesn't always favour that kind of decision.

And in Kotor doing light side options many times meant more work to get basicly the same result, the fact of the matter is that the difference is dependant on what you want from the game.

[Zugin]

Doesnt matter Renegade is more fun Queen dead, Council dead, Legion sent to Cerberus, base going to TIM. Going to make killing cerberus even more fun if they betray you after you help them out

[pmac_tk421]

I don't think destroying the collector was the wrong choice, given what we know about cerberus in ME3.

[KotorEffect3]

Oh look another thread where angry vengeful renegades want to punish paragons.

[RyuujinZERO]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I doubt any Paragon decision will backfire, as BioWare seems to be almost obsessively biased towards that morality.

Not historically true. Past Bioware games HAVE had situations where the "moral" decision was not always the best; of most extreme note being in NWN: HotU, where taking the diplomatic option/minimal bloodshed with the illithid ultimately results in them gaining a foothold in the region after the events of the game and enslaving thousands of local inhabitants.

(The "best" scenario being the far more 'renegade' option of lying your way into their base to get a shot at assasinating the elder brain for that outpost, which means after the events of the game the illithid are left scattered and are ultimately mopped up by the local drow forces.)

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 05 octobre 2011 - 08:34 .

[boxian]

I played the games just once through (recently, for the first time) and I played my Shep as a mix of the two, but considering that I had an Earthborn, gang affliated background and had the Ruthless origin, I figured that I'd be more willing to get my hands dirty and make more appropriate special forces style mission accomplishment decisions.

So I killed the Rachni queen, wiped out the heretic Geth, killed Saren's helpers. On Virimire, I didn't save a romantic interest, I went ahead with the plan that had already been put into place and saved Gunnery Chief Williams because the Normandy was already headed there and so was I and there wasn't enough time to do both. I yelled at Wrex until he figured out that his people would just be slaves (but I wanted to download the research so that we could take it later on). Mordin kept the research of his assistant, but I let him shoot the guy who did those terrible experiments. On Noveria, I went saved most of the people there (then I replayed it when I saw how many paragon points that was and just killed everyone) because it was easy and the anti-Thorian grenades got both goals achieved faster and easier than anything else.

And when the Council ship was about to get destroyed, I let it because there was a bigger mission at hand, and mission accomplishment is priority 1 with troop welfare priority 2 - the fleet's firepower was needed to destroy Sovereign. A distaste for politicians made me elect Captain Anderson as humanity's rep, and I think I just hit the wrong button or wanted the extra points so it became full human. At the end of ME2, I destroyed the Collector ship because it was too dangerous and Cerebus hasn't been a trustworthy entity.

I made all those choices because I thought that there were pros and cons to each and that there were "Bad Things" that could happen in either case. I'm disappointed to realize that's not true, and if I'd just forgotten any kind of training Shep would have ever gotten about threat assessment, everything would have worked out better and more interesting.

PS: I was trying to find out, but basically those emails are just garbage and you don't get anything from them? I was hoping that some of them were relevant and stuff to start up some quests with, or just some extra characterization (like the email from the Doc on the Citadel, I wanted to go and talk with people about the emails)