Aller au contenu

Photo

Rengade actions should lead to a more successful war effort


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
366 réponses à ce sujet

#76
Troika0

Troika0
  • Members
  • 91 messages
 Actually, I suspect the handling of the rachni decision in ME3 for renegades is even worse than Kaiser pointed out.

Spoiler:











So regardless of your choice on Noveria, the reapers acquire a rachni queen. If you made the paragon decision, it's the queen from Noveria, but if destroy the queen the reapers simply have another one. It's an enormously contrived slap in the face, but at least it doesn't put you in a worse position than the paragons even if it should have put you ahead (and it's not as though the reapers have two queens on a paragon run).

Where things really start to turn for the worse for renegades is the inevitable choices available from the above decision. As you would expect, part of the plot of ME3 is combating the threat posed by this reaperized rachni force and at the end you either get to save or destroy the captured queen. If you save the queen you get another war asset to help you, but there's a caveat. See, in the script there's also a conversation about the acquired rachni, one iteration mentioning how they've integrated into your forces as productive members while a second mentions them getting violent and having to be exterminated. Now, I confess I'm making an inference, but based on past treatments of renegade choices and Hudson's comments that in order to achieve the best outcomes with either path the player needs to continue down that path (i.e. the paragon decision yeilds the optimal outcome for a situation resultant from a prior paragon decision) I suspect that attempting to save the rediculous new rachni queen as a Shepard who previously killed the Noveria rachni queen will result in the sub-optimal, really failure outcome.

This all means that if all of the above holds true, not only does the renegade not result in better results in a situation where it incontrovertibly should, but even if they attempt to salvage a positive from a bad situation it will backfire, meaning paragons ultimately get the optimal outcome for that whole chain of events. I'll add that this is not an isolated incident; there are no comparable instances where paragon decisions are so egregiously hand-waved away and result in a less positive outcome than their renegade counterparts. Not even Cerberus getting the collector tech regardless or Anderson getting replaced by Udina are as egregious as some of the things that consistently happen to a person playing a pure renegade run.

I know that everyone likes to gripe about their lot and hate having it cast back in their face that they're better off than others or that they've been spoiled, but paragons: you've been spoiled. 

Modifié par Troika0, 18 décembre 2011 - 09:58 .


#77
Guest_Calinstel_*

Guest_Calinstel_*
  • Guests
Paragon and Renegade will get the player to the exact same point.

BW cannot create two separate games for each choice, that would be stupidly expensive on BW's part and childish of us to demand. So, the story will use EITHER choice as the correct one.
To balance out the decisions, some slight of hand will be used so that in ME3, all battles will have the same foes but maybe with different beginnings.
The true difference in the two choices is in the actual missions, as we have already seen and has been mentioned before. Ease of battles where the decisions decide how you do it as in Feros. Something might be slightly easier choosing one or the other but in the end, nothing will have really changed.
We DO have choices but, in the end, the game is about stopping the Reapers. Not looking like a Knight in shining catsuits nor is it looking like a Bosh'tet towards all sentient races but humans.

There is NO RIGHT OR WRONG, just two ways to do the same thing.
Paragon players need to stop being smug and laughing at the Renegades.
Renegade players need to stop feeling screwed or trying to screw over Paragons.

P.S. And the children who just HAVE to post spoilers to show how smart they are need to stop as the spoilers are way out of date and could be totally altered if not removed.

#78
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages

Yezdigerd wrote...
No it isn't. the renegade path allows you to do outrageous malicious thing without consequences, the paragon path allows you to feel good about saving pixels. it's really your choice, you can save the galaxy either way.


Not true.  Only Paragon decisions have been able to have their cake and eat it too.  Renegades have always had consequences for their actions... usually being that it's always a pointless choice and the Paragon alternative is superior.

Want to stop Sovereign from summoning the Reapers (as he sits alone at the Citadel... and could regain control at virtually any time?).  Go ahead and take the time to save the Council first... Sovereign will wait for you.. no big deal.

Want to keep a terrorist from terrorizing any more innocent people?  Let him go... no big deal, he won't do anything else out there.

Want to get Zaeed's loyalty and have a better chance of stopping the Collectors?  Go ahead and let Vido go... doesn't matter, he'll still be loyal to you.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 décembre 2011 - 09:59 .


#79
mybudgee

mybudgee
  • Members
  • 23 050 messages
Can you kids please refrain from spoiling things for us?!?! Thanks so much

#80
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages
No "Sacrifice" that a Renegade/Neutral player has made payed off compared to other choices. Taking the high ground and doing the "ideal" thing always works out the best, grants the most content, provides the most consistent narrative, provides the most praise, and saves the most lives. That's been the constant issue with this series.

#81
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages

The Librarian wrote...

Bioware have their view on Rengade just as fans has their. Rengade is not just about doing hard decisions. It's also about being an ****. Sadly for those who don't agree, it is Biowared version that matters. If you don't like it, grow a pare, get over it and play Paragade.

Just because a person likes one way better don't mean that that way should be a good way.


You've missed the point dudeImage IPB.  It doesn't matter how they view Paragons and Renegades... it's the fact that the best outcomes go to one exclusive type of choice.  That defeats the purpose of having a "tough choice" at all.

#82
Guest_TheDaniellasaur_*

Guest_TheDaniellasaur_*
  • Guests
I love the Renegade options. They make me laugh, well some of them. :D

#83
Guest_FallTooDovahkiin_*

Guest_FallTooDovahkiin_*
  • Guests

Arcian wrote...

This thread will inevitably lead to a Cerberus/Renegade circlejerking circus.

Yeah just like all the other threads like this.

#84
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages
Personally I could care less about the Cerberus/Renegade vs Paragon "circus."

I'd just like to see choices in the game be "tough" choices... instead of "just follow your idealistic heart" choices.

Instead of asking "Should I pick the win button or try something worse? (Because I already know which will provide the best outcome without even hearing the choice's context)" you'd have to ask "What decision, in light of the story's scenario/context and odds at-hand, should I make? (because I have no idea what will work)"

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:20 .


#85
Guest_Calinstel_*

Guest_Calinstel_*
  • Guests

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Personally I could care less about the Cerberus/Renegade vs Paragon "circus."

I'd just like to see choices in the game be "tough" choices... instead of "just follow your idealistic heart" choices.

Instead of asking "Should I pick the win button or try something worse? (Because I already know which will provide the best outcome without even hearing the choice's context)" you'd have to ask "What decision, in light of the story's scenario/context and odds at-hand, should I make? (because I have no idea what will work)"

Then wait until ME3 when the choices CAN really have impact and BW does not need to carry the myriad of  choices over to another game.   Everything before had to lead to the start of ME3.  Hence the bastardization of paragon Shepards in Arrival.  Now, BW can go wild. 
(Um, after they recover from their christmas pary.)  :)

#86
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages

Calinstel wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Personally I could care less about the Cerberus/Renegade vs Paragon "circus."

I'd just like to see choices in the game be "tough" choices... instead of "just follow your idealistic heart" choices.

Instead of asking "Should I pick the win button or try something worse? (Because I already know which will provide the best outcome without even hearing the choice's context)" you'd have to ask "What decision, in light of the story's scenario/context and odds at-hand, should I make? (because I have no idea what will work)"


Then wait until ME3 when the choices CAN really have impact and BW does not need to carry the myriad of  choices over to another game.   Everything before had to lead to the start of ME3.  Hence the bastardization of paragon Shepards in Arrival.  Now, BW can go wild. 
(Um, after they recover from their christmas pary.)  :)


Thing is though, they could've really had an impact with the 2nd game but they just didn't do it (choosing to favor the Paragon side and lumping the Renegade/neutral outcomes with the cut content of "new" players).  There's nothing to suggest that anything different is being done anymore.

I'd loove to hear someone from Bioware address this issue... as they've addressed pettier issues.  The fact that they don't address it suggests a lot about how they're handling development of ME3 (which seems to be the same way they did ME2... flesh out the Paragon story and then do the rest if there's enough time... cut content otherwise and always make the outcome worse than the main Paragon story). 

Paragon Shepard was unharmed in what transpired in Arrival...  You could even argue more favoritism by not offering a choice in Arrival so Paragon choices could remain the "do no wrong" choice of the series.

For the record, I'm not even a Renegade, lol

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:48 .


#87
Sundance31us

Sundance31us
  • Members
  • 2 647 messages
Personally I hope the paragon/renegade paths are choices and not merely problems.

Video Games and Choice :


#88
Guest_Calinstel_*

Guest_Calinstel_*
  • Guests

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Personally I could care less about the Cerberus/Renegade vs Paragon "circus."

I'd just like to see choices in the game be "tough" choices... instead of "just follow your idealistic heart" choices.

Instead of asking "Should I pick the win button or try something worse? (Because I already know which will provide the best outcome without even hearing the choice's context)" you'd have to ask "What decision, in light of the story's scenario/context and odds at-hand, should I make? (because I have no idea what will work)"


Then wait until ME3 when the choices CAN really have impact and BW does not need to carry the myriad of  choices over to another game.   Everything before had to lead to the start of ME3.  Hence the bastardization of paragon Shepards in Arrival.  Now, BW can go wild. 
(Um, after they recover from their christmas pary.)  :)


Thing is though, they could've really had an impact with the 2nd game but they just didn't do it (choosing to favor the Paragon side and lumping the Renegade/neutral outcomes with the cut content of "new" players).  There's nothing to suggest that anything different is being done anymore.

Paragon Shepard was unharmed in what transpired in Arrival...  You could even argue more favoritism by not offering a choice in Arrival so Paragon choices could remain the "do no wrong" choice of the series.

For the record, I'm not even a Renegade, lol

I am sorry, but if you do not see how killing 300,000 people, even batarians, is NOT a paragon choice I don't know what to say.  BW FORCED all player to kill them, setting us every player for the same beginning in ME3.

#89
Medhia Nox

Medhia Nox
  • Members
  • 5 066 messages
"Tough choices" - seriously?

I know gamers who punch reporters just to get their rocks off.

There's no "tough choices" in video games - especially modern ones - because there is no actually "loss" in modern video games (even the past ones were only frustration and loss of time).

Should I blow up the Geth? Sure - cause it doesn't really matter - I'm going to win.

BUT - if one of the choices was - "Choose this and you lose." Then that would be the group of complainers in that game ranting about how "This is illogical or stupid or not the 'tough choice' or blah blah blah" because it wasn't their choice that was picked as the best.

1st World problems are so important.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:33 .


#90
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages

Medhia Nox wrote...

"Tough choices" - seriously?

I know gamers who punch reporters just to get their rocks off.

There's no "tough choices" in video games - especially modern ones - because there is no actually "loss" in modern video games (even the past ones were only frustration and loss of time).

Should I blow up the Geth? Sure - cause it doesn't really matter - I'm going to win.

BUT - if one of the choices was - "Choose this and you lose." Then that would be the group of complainers in that game ranting about how "This is illogical or stupid or not the 'tough choice' or blah blah blah" because it wasn't their choice that was picked as the best.

1st World problems are so important.


Because I was totally thinking of punching the Reporter when I referred to tough decisionsImage IPB.    


But seriously, I'm talking about what could've been tough choices (had I not been aware of the favoritism) like:

"Do I send the only reinforcements to try and save the Council (who's in trouble) as priority 1 or do I send them to stop Sovereign before he retakes control of the station (and summons the Reapers) ASAP?".

That actually was a tough choice until you catch onto the fact that the game shows favoritism to Blue over all other alternatives (and continues to a worse degree in the sequel).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:47 .


#91
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages

Calinstel wrote...
I am sorry, but if you do not see how killing 300,000 people, even batarians, is NOT a paragon choice I don't know what to say.  BW FORCED all player to kill them, setting us every player for the same beginning in ME3.


It's not a Paragon choice... there was no choice to make there.  You could not choose... hence there not being a Paragon choice.

If you really want to choose not to kill the Batarians... just let the time run out (you have no other feasible options).  Naturally though, they couldn't make "just let the time run out" a Paragon choice because that would be counter to Bioware's intention of Paragon favoritism.Image IPB


Also notice how you feel a bit jipped as a Paragon player because you're not used to not having a "win all" button.  I feel that way too sometimes... because the blue affects us all.Image IPB

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:59 .


#92
Mr. Gogeta34

Mr. Gogeta34
  • Members
  • 4 033 messages
All in all though, I want to be proven wrong... and I'm hoping that this prodding will generate some information that eases these doubts.

I'd just prefer not to go into ME3 feeling like I already know the best choice to make before I even know what that choice is.

#93
Bleachrude

Bleachrude
  • Members
  • 3 154 messages
 1. re: Council choice

Somebody actually pointed out something...why is sacrificing the council the "renegade" option. Didn't the ME1 explicitly mention that the Destiny Ascension was the most powerful ship in the galaxy....

Why the hell would you sacrifice the most powerful asset you have? Think about it, if ANY ship had a chance of taking sovereign down, wouldn't it be, "the monster that can one-shot ANY alliance ship".

The whole point/reason you have escorts is that they are SUPPOSED to sacrifice themselves to allow the heavy hitter to take a swing?

The more I think about it, the more I think the Renegade action would be to acrifice the alliance cruisers....

2. Renegade options

Again, nobody arguing for the renegade option has actually shown how the Renegade player actually screwed over in terms of the game...Going paragon, yep..I can point to multiple times in ME2 where going paragon had the game screwing you over...

Hell, the argument that renegades should be getting something should ALSO apply to paragon players..other than the "feel good" option, in real being nice tends to actually have concrete benefits as well....

#94
AlexXIV

AlexXIV
  • Members
  • 10 670 messages

Calinstel wrote...
I am sorry, but if you do not see how killing 300,000 people, even batarians, is NOT a paragon choice I don't know what to say.  BW FORCED all player to kill them, setting us every player for the same beginning in ME3.

Shepard is not killing 300.000 people. He/she is blowing up a mass relay to keep the Reapers from invading. There is no choice, as you can see since playing the game offers you none. Blow it up or the galaxy goes down. That 300.000 people die is a shame, but it doesn't have anything to do with a choice or the question whether they deserve to die or not.

If a giant asteroid would threaten to destroy earth and you decide to blow it up, which may cause hundretthousands of people to die because they get hit by the debris that still hits earth, did you kill/murder these people? No you chose to do what you can to limit the damage. Sorry for those that died, but it is in no way your fault.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 18 décembre 2011 - 11:10 .


#95
Guest_Calinstel_*

Guest_Calinstel_*
  • Guests

AlexXIV wrote...

Calinstel wrote...
I am sorry, but if you do not see how killing 300,000 people, even batarians, is NOT a paragon choice I don't know what to say.  BW FORCED all player to kill them, setting us every player for the same beginning in ME3.

Shepard is not killing 300.000 people. He/she is blowing up a mass relay to keep the Reapers from invading. There is no choice, as you can see since playing the game offers you none. Blow it up or the galaxy goes down. That 300.000 people die is a shame, but it doesn't have anything to do with a choice or the question whether they deserve to die or not.

If a giant asteroid would threaten to destroy earth and you decide to blow it up, which may cause hundretthousands of people to die because they get hit by the debris that still hits earth, did you kill/murder these people? No you chose to do what you can to limit the damage. Sorry for those that died, but it is in no way your fault.

My point was not made well.  The Paragon choice, trying to warn the systems inhabitants, is the choice that really made it pointless.
The forced timing from 2 days to 2 hours to 30 minutes was just BW trying to hide the fact that they NEEDED the same outcome from Arrival. 

#96
AlexXIV

AlexXIV
  • Members
  • 10 670 messages

Calinstel wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Calinstel wrote...
I am sorry, but if you do not see how killing 300,000 people, even batarians, is NOT a paragon choice I don't know what to say.  BW FORCED all player to kill them, setting us every player for the same beginning in ME3.

Shepard is not killing 300.000 people. He/she is blowing up a mass relay to keep the Reapers from invading. There is no choice, as you can see since playing the game offers you none. Blow it up or the galaxy goes down. That 300.000 people die is a shame, but it doesn't have anything to do with a choice or the question whether they deserve to die or not.

If a giant asteroid would threaten to destroy earth and you decide to blow it up, which may cause hundretthousands of people to die because they get hit by the debris that still hits earth, did you kill/murder these people? No you chose to do what you can to limit the damage. Sorry for those that died, but it is in no way your fault.

My point was not made well.  The Paragon choice, trying to warn the systems inhabitants, is the choice that really made it pointless.
The forced timing from 2 days to 2 hours to 30 minutes was just BW trying to hide the fact that they NEEDED the same outcome from Arrival. 

Well yes. That they did. I don't think they were hiding or trying to hide it though.

#97
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages
I disagree with the OP. A paragon choice wouldn't necessarily be to attempt an impossible rescue and severely damage the fleet's ability to fight. To use the BSG analogy, Adama was the paragon. Admiral Cain was the renegade.

There is the possibility of any faction in this war becoming indoctrinated, or in the case of the Geth, hacked again. The paragon/renegade system over-simplifies the entire game. It is like viewing the galaxy from Samara's black & white code. While that can work in some cases, it will fail in others, and it will fail against the reapers. It is too predictable.

My paragon Shepard sacrificed 300,000 Batarians to slow a reaper invasion. Didn't even bother to warn the colony. What could they do in 20 mins? Freak out? Mass pandemonium? None could get to the relay in time so there was no point. Let them go about their day to day activities, then just gone. Painful? Yes, even if they were Batarian.

A renegade is defined as a deserter from one allegiance to another, or someone who rejects lawful or conventional behavior.

A paragon is supposed to be a model of perfection, which when you put two words "human paragon" together you have an oxymoron, and a character archetype that is totally unrealistic. I find this as unbelievable as an arch-villain.

By these definitions, the Reapers have defined themselves as Paragons and saviors of the galaxy. They are the ultimate good. They are our salvation through our destruction.

I think the real difference between the paragon and the renegade from a more realistic point of view is the degree of willingness to take responsibility for one's actions. Paragon doesn't mean weak. Renegade doesn't mean strong. I've always tended toward the middle path in these games anyway, neither true paragon nor true renegade, although I have to admit playing true renegade is a lot harder. I just don't find a lot of fun being a total **** for 40 hrs.

So now can you have evil paragons and good renegades? I suppose that depends upon which side you're on.

#98
Durgon Ironfist

Durgon Ironfist
  • Members
  • 297 messages
To sum up this thread:
TLDR; I'm renegade and thus I should be right. My opinions are greater than yours paragons are pansies. Seriously don't you coxcombs have better uses of your time and energy?????

#99
Guest_Rojahar_*

Guest_Rojahar_*
  • Guests
No. There should only be two options for everything. One decision which leads to allies and everything working out against all odds, even if it's Deus Ex Machina, and a second option that makes an ass and idiot of yourself, leads to everyone hating you, handicaps, less content, and barely scraping along. That way nobody ever has to think. In-fact, make the first options blue, and second options red, just to really drive the point home. Oh, wait, no... that's already how it is...

Why are there supposedly "options" in this game at all? Really, its sad that the most meaningful choices in the series are "Which NPC sex scene do you want to watch?" but even that is implemented terribly.

Modifié par Rojahar, 19 décembre 2011 - 12:04 .


#100
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

Sundance31us wrote...

Personally I hope the paragon/renegade paths are choices and not merely problems.

Video Games and Choice :


Funny videos I did watch the ones on choices. Very good. I fully agree. It would make things a lot better. Like that dose of medigel that you gave the sick batarian or the wounded salarian -- check your inventory because it didn't cost you anything. It should have. And I agree -- do away with the meters. And don't show the dialogues in orange and blue, and if you haven't unlocked the lines don't even show them grayed out.