366 réponses à ce sujet

[John Renegade]

Calinstel wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Ryuzetsu wrote...

Nothing about paragon IMO is easy. Sure a renegade can make sacrifices, but a lot of those times it doesn't hurt the renegade themselves. Paragons usually have to take on sacrifices that deny themselves, happiness, comfort, wealth, health. This to my mind is the harder choice, because you have to comprise yourself and strive for diplomatic solutions.

I don't recall any Paragon decision being the more painful one to make (loss of happiness, comfort - more like exact opposite) but I could be mistaken.

Also, Renegade is not about some subjective "good feelings". It is about doing, what is the necessary and therefore correct thing to do. Renegades generally find people, who let their "good feelings" decide who lives and who dies, too selfish.

Saving the Council, knowing it will most likely cause the death of many humans.  Easy choice would be to just wait.

Or making the opposite choice, knowing that ten thousand are going to die.

With rachni you always must press a button, nothing more. Plus, Renegades could live with knowledge of a galactic genocide coming and them just getting rid of a potential ally.

The point is, that different people have different feelings in different situations, but nobody should let those feelings cloud their judgement and their decisions.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:07 .

[Sebbe1337o]

Renegade shouldn't be equal to failure every time, it should have a better outcome than paragon in some cases imo. Sadly it seems it won't be like that.

[Bleachrude]

But renegade doesn't net you any disadvantages either so I don't think renegade is presented as the wrong choice either...

Is ANY part of the game harder if you take either paragon or renegade path? To my knowledge there's no quantifiable difference so renegade is never really the "wrong" choice IMO.

[Andorfiend]

It's still up in the air, how some of those choices will play out.

Rachni may be indoctrinated.

Shiala may turn out to channel the Thorian.

Elnora was a murderess.

I cannot see how letting Balak go to save a few hostages was a 'good' decision.

Paragon isn't always right, Renegade isn't always wrong. He is usually a jerk though.

[John Renegade]

Bleachrude wrote...

But renegade doesn't net you any disadvantages either so I don't think renegade is presented as the wrong choice either...

Is ANY part of the game harder if you take either paragon or renegade path? To my knowledge there's no quantifiable difference so renegade is never really the "wrong" choice IMO.

It's not as much about something being harder, but more about lack of content in some cases and about being "proven" wrong in all cases ("oh, that sacrifice wasn't necessary in the end" moments).

You choose certain thing over another, because you think that one choice is going to end up better than the other one. And you end up being kicked to the @ss every single time. The problem is that Mass Effect is supposed to represent a realistic society, at least from the choices/consequences angle of view, but the writers blatantly favored one approach to solving problems over the other one.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:29 .

[Inprea]

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.

[Ryuzetsu]

I'm not saying that Renegade is in anyway the wrong choice. I have chosen it on numerous occasions, especially when someone has pissed me off enough to skip due process. But that is why I said Paragon is diplomatic. Granted I get the whole ends justify... but tactically making Paragon choices means thinking 3 to 5 steps ahead. If it applies in geopolitical chess, it would apply in the intergalactic equivalent.

[John Renegade]

Andorfiend wrote...


I cannot see how letting Balak go to save a few hostages was a 'good' decision.

If you only knew... *points to spoiler discussion group*

[BellaStrega]

Did they? How exactly are you punished for making renegade choices? How are you rewarded for making paragon choices?

Is nearly two years of pointless arguing over whether or not it was logical to blow up the collector base primarily the result of some kind of bizarre siblingesque rivalry?

[John Renegade]

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.

This isn't about gameplay differences, but about how player's decisions affect the story and how they affect the player himself/herself.

I don't ****ing care about whether I have to fight a few more people or similar things like this.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:34 .

[Bleachrude]

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

[John Renegade]

Bleachrude wrote...

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

Setting is one thing, but choices and consequences were always presented as being "realistic" in Mass Effect. They don't seem realistic to me one bit.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Inprea]

John Renegade wrote...

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.

This isn't about gameplay differences, but about how player's decisions affect the story and how they affect the player himself/herself.

I don't ****ing care about whether I have to fight a few more people or similar things like this.

Last time I checked greater difficulty in combat affects the player and whether or not you told your squad mates to gun down innocent victims or not is part of the storyline. It sure goes a long way to show what kind of person your Shepard is.

[Bleachrude]

John Renegade wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

Setting is one thing, but choices and consequences were always presented as being "realistic" in Mass Effect. They don't seem realistic to me one bit.

Then paragons have more to complain about IMO. I was actually wrong in stating that there was no gameplay difference between the two choices since an earlier poster mentioned how paragons only get the "feel good" effect whereas renegade nets you actual quantifiable benefit.

I mean, if choice and consequence really meant something, a human council should mean that being a spectrecarries no weight among the other races....

What I see you asking for is having your cake and eating it too...Being a renegade doesn't affect the game world/storyline to the extent that you notice it in actual gameplay...

[John Renegade]

Bleachrude wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

If ME was anything resembling realistic, then the "humanity F*** yeah" vibe of the setting would be absent, there would be Cerebus-style groups among ALL the alien races, the massive numerical advantage the council has should mean that even if the council was sacrificed, it would be replaced by another council made up of the same races with at most one seat given to humans.

Hell, to be honest, the fact that the council oversees trillions of people with hundreds of worlds means that humanity would walk very quietly and wouldn't even think of "demanding" anything...

(I personally never understood this outcome...just because the council was wiped out, the asari, salarians and turians don't put forward replacements? What the hell?)

Setting is one thing, but choices and consequences were always presented as being "realistic" in Mass Effect. They don't seem realistic to me one bit.

Then paragons have more to complain about IMO. I was actually wrong in stating that there was no gameplay difference between the two choices since an earlier poster mentioned how paragons only get the "feel good" effect whereas renegade nets you actual quantifiable benefit.

I mean, if choice and consequence really meant something, a human council should mean that being a spectrecarries no weight among the other races....

What I see you asking for is having your cake and eating it too...Being a renegade doesn't affect the game world/storyline to the extent that you notice it in actual gameplay...

What I'm asking for is Paragons having their choices granting them both -  positives and negatives - as well as renegades would.

What I'm asking for is no missing content for renegades, like no human council to be seen in ME2.

What I'm asking for is, that if there are gameplay differences, than those differences should transfer to the story as well (like hypothetical allies/technology - that is the "story" part - having a direct effect on the gameplay in ME3 final battle. Effect being both positive and negative for both Paragon and Renegade).

For me and many other people mere gameplay differences are only a way by which devs get away easily from creating more deep storyline which would have an impact on the players. (Unlike when you fight one krogan more, than you would otherwise have - a big deal)

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[DiebytheSword]

InvincibleHero wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Renegade choices, while results orientated, are often a bit heavy handed, and could result in bruised morale for the side that's making those hard decisions. Without empathy, there is no civilization, only a loose confederacy of convenience. Ideally, the approach is balanced, with choices affecting morale and combat readiness.

Well it would take a leader to convince them of the necessity of sacrifice. I doubt people would fight less optimally if their lives and their entire civilization depended on it.

Some of the actions don't make sense as renegade they are just plain evil/mean spirited and exaggerated fro comedic effect. I never punch the reporter that is stupid for one example.

Its the point of commanding loyalty through fear or through resepct, and which is more effective.  Though in truth, a little bit of both is required, your personal balance may vary.  I actually do doubt that people fight more optimally when frightened for their existence, killing your fears is not an easy thing to do.  I agree on that, and there are similar Paragon decisions that are way too happy go lucky for a black ops soldier; they are also exaggerated.

[Yezdigerd]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Renegades are used to making the hard decisions while paragons have had their cake and ate it.

If by hard decisions you mean indulging in pettiness and pointless cruelty, you got it right.

They save everyone and magically redeem scalawags. They likely feel deific due to the history of their victories and acclaim. Realistically that should change for ME3.

Not at all. People who punch reporters, kill the council, let people burn to death for kicks would be generally reviled and discourage trust. With even a smidgen of realism the renegade path would be hopeless.

I truly hope there is less bias in paragon =  huge win, but even if it is not so I won't lose any sleep over it.

There is no bias. You can play Shepard as a hero or a jerkface and you will succeed in either case. The only difference is that some npcs are dead because you killed them, and those alive call you a jerkface because you are.

[Bleachrude]

Yezdigerd speaks truly.

Being a jerk/ass especially with a famous personality like Shepard should be harder with talking to people... I mean, when you go to the citadel and talk to the merchants, you can easily browbeat them into giving you a discount....just because you were jerk.

I can see the paragon option making sense especially the turian arms dealer (to a turian, of course he would love humanity after seeing the humans save the council at the cost of their lives since this is what the turians did themselves - and yes, I want him to name his first born after me) but the renegade one?

(Thought of another way paragons gets screwed - the paragon action during Samara's recruitment is to let the asari eclipse go because you think she is a nice kid that got over her head - later in the same mission you find out she played you for a fool and that she gleefully killed that volus

Isn't this what renegades want to see where the renegade choice is the "right one"?)

[John Renegade]

Yezdigerd wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Renegades are used to making the hard decisions while paragons have had their cake and ate it.

If by hard decisions you mean indulging in pettiness and pointless cruelty, you got it right.

They save everyone and magically redeem scalawags. They likely feel deific due to the history of their victories and acclaim. Realistically that should change for ME3.

Not at all. People who punch reporters, kill the council, let people burn to death for kicks would be generally reviled and discourage trust. With even a smidgen of realism the renegade path would be hopeless.

I truly hope there is less bias in paragon =  huge win, but even if it is not so I won't lose any sleep over it.

There is no bias. You can play Shepard as a hero or a jerkface and you will succeed in either case. The only difference is that some npcs are dead because you killed them, and those alive call you a jerkface because you are.

Renegade is supposed to be about making sacrifices to ensure a better outcome, not about kicking puppies. But if you are sometimes allowed to make such a choice, you later find out, that that sacrifice was utterly meaningless, because by not making it you could have achieved just the same (or sometimes even better) outcome. And more content. And it happens to you like that all the time...

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:30 .

[Bleachrude]

John Renegade wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Renegades are used to making the hard decisions while paragons have had their cake and ate it.

If by hard decisions you mean indulging in pettiness and pointless cruelty, you got it right.

They save everyone and magically redeem scalawags. They likely feel deific due to the history of their victories and acclaim. Realistically that should change for ME3.

Not at all. People who punch reporters, kill the council, let people burn to death for kicks would be generally reviled and discourage trust. With even a smidgen of realism the renegade path would be hopeless.

I truly hope there is less bias in paragon =  huge win, but even if it is not so I won't lose any sleep over it.

There is no bias. You can play Shepard as a hero or a jerkface and you will succeed in either case. The only difference is that some npcs are dead because you killed them, and those alive call you a jerkface because you are.

Renegade is supposed to be about making sacrifices to ensure a better outcome, not about kicking puppies. But if you are sometimes allowed to make such a choice, you later find out, that that sacrifice was utterly meaningless, because by not making it you could achieve just the same (or sometimes even better) outcome. And it happens to you like that all the time...

Ok, again, please point out one time when the renegade outcome actually was the WORST outcome. You keep saying this but you haven't shown one example of where the renegade player gets screwed by their choice....

This thread has actually shown MULTIPLE instances of where taking the paragon action is the worst outcome so paragons have reason to complain (the asari eclipse, the batarian plague victim, K\\al Rheegar)...but renegade, exactly how did you get screwed?

Modifié par Bleachrude, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:33 .

[N172]

It seems some of you do not know what a renegade actually is, well here is a prime example from ME1:
Saren Arterius

[BlueMagitek]

Bleachrude wrote...

(Thought of another way paragons gets screwed - the paragon action during Samara's recruitment is to let the asari eclipse go because you think she is a nice kid that got over her head - later in the same mission you find out she played you for a fool and that she gleefully killed that volus

Isn't this what renegades want to see where the renegade choice is the "right one"?)

Actually no, you find that out beforehand; Zaeed even mentions it for you.  Having an Eclipse uniform means you are a murderer.  And even if you don't want to kill her, the appropriate response isn't to let her go.

There should be some Paragon decisions that lead to a better war effort and some Renegade ones.  And maybe even some of those poor ignored Neutral options.