366 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But you've got to love Jack's line on the interrupt if you took her with you on Thane's recruitment. "Sh*t, Shepard! I gotta take lessons from you."

[Bad King]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'm usually a bigger fan of intimidating folks than punching/interrupting them, everybody mentions how awesome it is to push the merc out the window but the intimidate option is just so much more sinister.

^ lololololol. The extent to which certain people on this site act like they're completely victimized by everybody else is absolutely ridiculous.

How was he acting like he was victimised? He simply expressed his preference for intimidation over renegade interrupts.

Are you being coy, or are just that stupid?

Here, read it out loud once. See if you can connect the dots as to where "everybody" is supposedly making out the alternative renegade option as being somehow evil. Because hey, people on this site just have it out for all renegade players, right? Even if no such posts where ever made.

No, I think you simply misunderstood the post, it doesn't claim that everybody else says that the intimidate option is sinister- he thought it was sinister and that was why he thought it was better than the interrupt (which isn't sinister or subtle). Have another read of the post.

[Dave of Canada]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

^ lololololol. The extent to which certain people on this site act like they're completely victimized by everybody else is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't understand what you're talking about so I'll pretend I'm a victim.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:46 .

[Troika0]

Another_Golden_Dragon wrote...

I never used the Renegade interupt or intimidation on the Merc (Thane Recruitment mission?), largely because I don't do intimidation. I use Charm (Is a little bit of information REALLY worth dying for? Is Nassana?). Works all the time.

You know, that's a very thinly veiled threat, some might even say an intimidation.

Modifié par Troika0, 19 décembre 2011 - 10:51 .

[Another_Golden_Dragon]

Troika0 wrote...

Another_Golden_Dragon wrote...

I never used the Renegade interupt or intimidation on the Merc (Thane Recruitment mission?), largely because I don't do intimidation. I use Charm (Is a little bit of information REALLY worth dying for? Is Nassana?). Works all the time.

You know, that's a very thinly veiled threat, some might even say an intimidation.

VERY thin.  Actually, it's charm only because the way to select it is blue....

Who said someone couldn't charm AND intimidate at the same time  (especially when Shepard is legendary, and known to get the job done...)?

[Yezdigerd]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But you've got to love Jack's line on the interrupt if you took her with you on Thane's recruitment. "Sh*t, Shepard! I gotta take lessons from you."

Yeah, when a infamous violent psycopath from a maximum security prison thinks her deeds pales in comparision you know you are on the right renegade path..

[Thompson family]

John Renegade wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Northing new here.

It seems the responsibility falls upon you to change that.

That was a warning to anybody opening the thread, not an observation.

If a road dead ends, no further commentary is necessary.

[didymos1120]

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Especially after Hackett could tell you that you got on her good side in ME1, seeing her devolve from 'critic' to 'hack' was a letdown.

Hackett never says that.  He will say you made her look like a fool though, and that other parties in the Alliance command were pleased with your performance.

No, if you go the Renegade route he'll say that "At least you got her on your side."

Oh, that's right.  Nevermind then.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Honestly, for a long time, I've just been manually adding enough "personality" points to the game to ignore the whole Paragon / Renegade dichotomy, and just gone to playing the Shep I'm playing as that Shep should be played.

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Especially after Hackett could tell you that you got on her good side in ME1, seeing her devolve from 'critic' to 'hack' was a letdown.

Hackett never says that.  He will say you made her look like a fool though, and that other parties in the Alliance command were pleased with your performance.

No, if you go the Renegade route he'll say that "At least you got her on your side."

Oh, that's right.  Nevermind then.

I'm surprised. You're so rarely wrong about anything lore related that I was doubting myself there for a bit.

[DxWill10]

Inprea wrote...

I disagree with the notion that renegades should get more benefits then paragons though I do believe there could be a difference in game play making it harder on paragons. I believe bioware did it right on Zhu's hope. You can choose to tell your squad mates that they are not to shoot civilians even if they shoot at them or you can tell them to purge the area.

Not shooting the civilians adds a higher level of difficulty to the mission which the paragon accepts in order to save the victims of the thorian. Another example is the drugged researchers that were taken hostage by the biotics. Once again if you truly want to go the paragon path you have to be careful not to shoot them while killing the biotics.

They did it again with Kal'Reegar in that you choose to give up his support in order to better protect his life if you go the paragon path.

I much prefer these instances of tougher game play to being punished by some storyline mechanic as it's up to the players ability to overcome the obstacle. Also I would say that these tougher game play elements are how paragons are punished and could be seen as giving up comfort.
Another example is of course the sick baterian on omega who if you allowed to die drops a 2000 credit item. Paragons give up this extra revenue in a game with finite income in order to save his life. He gives us nothing in return other then the knowledge that we did the ethical thing.

agreed, i'm fine with this.  If choosing paragon means a certain segment of gameplay becomes a little more challenging, bring it on. 
I like renegade playthroughs.  The only reason why I have so few of them is because of all the lost content I just can't seem to let go of even though it's there in my other play throughs,  perhaps it's OCD 

I'd go the whole paragade route, except i can't stand to not be able to select all the dialogue checks (probably attributed to ocd again) , which means I pretty much have to to choose 100% one or the other. 

It doesn't matter to me either way, seeing as how I plan on doing both play throughs for ME3.  However, my renegade characters also saved the rachni, saved wrex, and the council.  When I made those decisions, I chose the paragon  even on a renegade character because I was afraid the only renegade result was a lack of content.  It turned out I was right, and I hope it's not that way for ME3.

Modifié par DxWill10, 20 décembre 2011 - 01:09 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Yezdigerd wrote...
There are no indications, at all, that Manuel constituted a danger, he and the doctor had managed to stay alive perfectly fine unlike the others. All Manuel does is speak his mind. Everything indicates Manuel will stay quit in face of danger as before.  Anyway if you want to push the issue it would have been the doctors call, who actually know him, a realistic renegade approach would have been to insist on sedating Manuel, either with his own kit or the doctors. Just decking him with "say good night Manuel" is b-movie dr. evil stuff.

As for the reporter, "socially acceptable" for a navy commander with a license to kill to smack her around, maybe in your universe, among adults it will make it painfully clear you are playing a video game for kids.

Everything indicates Manuel will stay quiet?  Last thing he stated (and with an elevated voice I might add) is "my voice must be heard!"  Hardly the declaration of someone who'd stay quiet.  I also take it for granted that you never played Dead Space 2... as it does suggest what those who are mentally unstable are capable of when anxious and idle for too long without meds.  But the dangerous part about this situation... is that Manuel was already on his meds while he was having that psychotic break.  The Doctor also said (in so many words) that, while smart, he was also a "mad" man.

The doctor also understood why Shepard did what he did after Shep explained himself and even supposed that he was right.  Manuel could've done any number of things stupid or dangerous if he continued on with his ranting and raving.


And for the reporter, that's Mass Effect's universe dude... not this one... and certainly not "mine" (whatever that means).  Everyone hits that reporter... the Shadowbroker's been keeping a tab on some of them.  Watch it yourself if you ever get the Shadowbroker DLC (I assume you're just not aware).

If you think that's childish, then blame Bioware.... they're the ones who made it a running gag of the series (along with Conrad Verner).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 décembre 2011 - 02:36 .

[AndyXTheXGamer360]

Do a huge paragon action or sacrifice Garrus?
You can't make me choose one!
I get mad when i get a TAD of renegade.

[Heimdall]

Sweeping statements like this just aren't realistic. Sometimes the renegade decisions are ruthlessly pragmatic... others they just amount to being a jerk and spoiling relationships with prospective allies.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sensible choices should help the war effort.

Paragon/renegade labels do not interest me.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

That's the key... sensible/realistic choices, not "ideal/naive" choices or "selfish/jerkish" choices.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Another example of studying Reaper tech being worth the risk: Arrival DLC.

Sure, those people got indoctrinated... but they also allowed us to destroy the Alpha Relay and prevent the Reaper's early "Arrival."


Had that tech not have been studied... observe the consequence:


NOT STUDYING YOUR ENEMY IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA...


It also goes to show that the Renegade choice (to preserve and study) would've been right here... (if given the choice) and the Paragon option would've been completely wrong (getting us all killed... and melting poor Kelly).  Naturally though, because of Paragon favoritism, that option was not presented.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 décembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[InvincibleHero]

Wulfram wrote...

Nothing about being "Paragon" says that they don't understand military strategy, or making sacrifices for the greater good. After all, they sacrifice Alliance soldiers to save the Destiny Ascension.

I'll also say that military forces to an extent rely on trust and mutual obligation. People fight better if they know that they won't just be abandoned, that their comrades will risk themselves to retrieve them.

This applies even more so when you're handling a multi-species alliance. If they think you're not prepared to spend human lives to save aliens, then why would they be prepared to spend their lives to save yours?

Renegades have their cake and eat it too. They get to be jerks to everyone, treat bosses and subordinates with utter contempt and kill anyone who annoys them, without any real consequences.

My Colonist/Sole Survivor isn't lacking in tragedy to toughen her up.

That is exactly the equivalent to my rescue quarian ships or not. It was paragon to attempt to rescue the DA so by extension it would be paragon to rescue those ships. It also caused casualties as a result the same as in my hypothetical situation. When will it be a situation where risk>reward for paragons. BW has set that bar too low since the risk is nearly non-existant for paragons.

You know what I don't believe that so fight poorly and die immediately yeah that makes sense. The whole morale bunk is a pure invention first of table top gaming then brought to pcs. The revolutionary war was won despite horrific conditions at Valley Forge and being vastly outmanned at all turns with poorer equipment. Fighting for your way of life and or survival is over everything. They are not going to lay down and die before renegade Shepard because he called them maggots.

You are naive if you think the alien races will not be doing it for their benefit. If the reapers win they die as well. They might last decades or even a century more, but they are likewise done for. In the beginning is the best chance when all forces are strong and united (if possible).

Those consequences are far more than any paragon action has resulted in. I'd say galactic wide enmity of most alien species is a pretty strong conseqence.

[InvincibleHero]

John Renegade wrote...

Yeah, but Renegades should at least get some advantage - like new technology. According to you renegade=jerk. According to me renegade=realistic patriot who understands that the end justify the means. Now tell me what are people like me supposed to do? I'm not a jerk and every "hard" decision I make turns against me.

This is what many people have problem with. I don't care about being a stupid jerk, I want to make meaningful decisions. I sacrifice people percisely because it is supposed to, at least in some cases, give me an advantage in the future. Now, where is that advantage?

Also, the Destiny Ascension decision is paragon, because you risk the galaxy to save ten thousand people. Call that strategic.

This post was meant for ME3 not past decisions. I meant in prosecuting the war the mindset could have real implications. I think renegade has the favor in an all-out war. Mission comes first should be the rule. Diverting to save an insignificant number of civilians or even your own forces should cost something. Not everytime becasue miracles do happen, but beating the odds should be a rare occurance not just another day at the beach for para-shep. I wonder if BW has the stones to make it so.

It would be interesting if renegades that killed certain NPC gets super shiny new ray gun or super armor. Would paragons break and kill them instead of letting them go like they always did? I think most would sell out the ideology if rewards outweigh the feel-good and blue points.

[Bleachrude]

InvincibleHero wrote...

It would be interesting if renegades that killed certain NPC gets super shiny new ray gun or super armor. Would paragons break and kill them instead of letting them go like they always did? I think most would sell out the ideology if rewards outweigh the feel-good and blue points.

Sure, as long as paragon options get something similar...People keep saying "paragons are favoured" but there's absolutely nothing in the 1st two games where going paragon nets you an advantage.

This thread has shown multiple times where going renegade nets you a quantifiable advantage but as yet, we havent seen the same with paragon choices...

Do players get more money for going paragon - well, no, reverse is actually true.
Do players get more stuff (techs, weapons) for going paragon - no.
Do players have an easier game while going paragon - again, reverse is actually true.
Do players if they choose paragon options actually get better results - Nope. In fact, given that paragon players get "turian councillor" AND are made a fool by that asari eclipse merc, the paragon option is actually worse than the renegade option in ME2.

Why do people keep insisting that paragon options are "better" when the game explicitly makes them not?

[InvincibleHero]

Nightwriter wrote...

Invincible Hero wrote...

Renegades are used to making the hard decisions

It doesn't seem like it's terribly hard for all of them. Many of them seem to consider making hard decisions as a badge of pride.

I don't mean specific posters or even past options. I mean the philosophy of what BW set up as renegade mindset. That line of thinking should prove more effective in a war zone. That is my OP distilled down.

[Han Shot First]

Here is the problem with a pure Renegade playthrough:

Shepard has worked for human dominance at the expense of the other great civilizations of the galaxy. As a general rule the other civilizations of the galaxy should view him with either mistrust or outright hatred.  Those civilizations also aren't likely to tolerate human dominance for long without an external threat that is worse than the humans, and humanity possesses neither the military or economic might to keep those civilizations down. In an intergalactic war where those civilizations have to be united to fight against a common threat, a pure Renegade Shepard (who should be a divisive, rather than unifying figure) should not get the best possible ending.

I'm all for some situations being better resolved with a renegade choice, but a pure renegade playthrough shouldn't get the best possible ending.

Neither should a pure paragon Shepard get the best ending. A pure paragon is unwilling to sometimes make tough decisions and should also pay the price for that.

The best ending should be achieved by playing the game somewhere between the two extremes. (paragade or renegon)

Modifié par Han Shot First, 21 décembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[InvincibleHero]

Guanxi wrote...

It depends how you determine success. Success for renegades might mean pretty much sacrificing every other race to get the best outcome for humanity but this would not be a measure of success for paragons at all.

I imagine in paragon games humanity makes great sacrifices which in turn ultimately results in a smaller role for humanity on the galactic stage but the burden and casualties are shared amongst all races which will ultimately result in more survivors. That is a better victory to paragons.

I don't mean things like that. I do dislike how BW tied renegade to a human racist philosophy in ME. They shied a little away from that in ME2 which was good.

What I meant was in real battle situations the renegade decisions like abandon 10 soldiers to insure mission security is bound to be more successful than roll the dice risk everything to save only ten civilians or quarians or whomever.

The postwar power distribution doesn't matter to me. I want a realistic process map to get past the reapers. If paragon looks like saves everyone misssion success, saves everyone mission success, saves everyone mission success, then it suspends disbelief overmuch. There should be tradeoffs especially when taking greater risks in the theater of war.