374 réponses à ce sujet

[Stokie Stallion]

LOL i'd doubt somebody could kill ashley easy, im hoping for a viking death for us both, IM NOT GOING LOSE YOU ASH, YOU THINK IM GOING LOSE YOU AGAIN SKIP?

*charges*

would do me fine, with the army i collected, united for being such a sweety and merciful god

[Hunter of Legends]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

THey were fighting for a better future for all people; helping that group just happened to be one way to do it.

What? Absolutely not. Ghandi was fighting against Tyranny in his country, not for all people in the world. Same goes for MLK. The problems he had in USA were not ones people had in Europe.

I'm not trying to dimish their actions, but telling me that they were altruists fighting for the world is just plain BS.

"You cannot fix the worlds problems in a day. You must start with a single step."

Fixing problems in our country helped to fix problems elsewhere. DId you know MLK was directly influenced by Ghandi? And Ghandi by Jesus?

[truestatic]

I myself am primarily a paragon player. When I try to do a dark side playthrough, or a renegade playthrough, or whatever, I usually find it pretty difficult to follow through on. It doesn't appeal to me.

That's beside the point though. The point is, I don't really know what the results of a renegade playthrough are. Since this thread is about how everything always sucks for Renegades, and it's not fair that Paragons always have everything work out for them, and Paragons should suffer the consequences of not being able to sacrifice the few to save the many, or the consequences of placing their trust in the untrustworthy, I'm curious to ask.

What exactly have been the dramatic negative consequences of playing a Renegade character?

[QuarkZ26]

AlexXIV wrote...

At least they were fighting for their people. Which is more than most do. I mean they could just have had a good life and live happily ever after but they chose to take one for the team.

And i totally agree, but still they can't be qualified as "altruists"

[Elegana]

What about PS3 players?

[AlexXIV]

Elegana wrote...

What about PS3 players?

They are masochists, not altruists.

[Hunter of Legends]

AlexXIV wrote...

Elegana wrote...

What about PS3 players?

They are masochists, not altruists.

Edi: That was a joke.

Modifié par Hunter of Legends, 28 février 2012 - 12:21 .

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Compromise doesn't contradict dimplomacy.

It's at the very  foundation of it! How do you think so many treaties are signed?

-I think we are speaking past eachother. I agree that compromise is the foundtation of diplomacy.

And now that I think of it, yes... I would likely have to conceed that some major discussions ingame are settled diplomatically by a paragon choise. I resent that actually .

Pretty much plays into my "evil/selfish is always hamfisted and stupid" phobia about most RPGs / Storydriven games. I do not see any reason why there could not be a very elequent, intelligent and diplomatic renegade option... after all... as you comment... IRL things are much more the other way around.

[QuarkZ26]

AlexXIV wrote...

Elegana wrote...

What about PS3 players?

They are masochists, not altruists.

Ha! I guess we can all agree on that jk

[Farbautisonn]

Stokie Stallion wrote...

LOL i'd doubt somebody could kill ashley easy, im hoping for a viking death for us both, IM NOT GOING LOSE YOU ASH, YOU THINK IM GOING LOSE YOU AGAIN SKIP?

*charges*

would do me fine, with the army i collected, united for being such a sweety and merciful god

-Dying in battle only gets you into Asgard if you die for the cause that Odin has chosen on the day in question and if the Valkyries notice you. Just being killed in a battle is a guarantee of nothing and even if you are spectacular in battle Freya might claim you too.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Compromise doesn't contradict dimplomacy.

It's at the very  foundation of it! How do you think so many treaties are signed?

-I think we are speaking past eachother. I agree that compromise is the foundtation of diplomacy.

And now that I think of it, yes... I would likely have to conceed that some major discussions ingame are settled diplomatically by a paragon choise. I resent that actually .

Pretty much plays into my "evil/selfish is always hamfisted and stupid" phobia about most RPGs / Storydriven games. I do not see any reason why there could not be a very elequent, intelligent and diplomatic renegade option... after all... as you comment... IRL things are much more the other way around.

Well, I will asnwer you this question in here or in PM when I get back=]

I'm off to take exams but I greatly like these discussions. So much better than needlessly complaining about not being able to holster weapons and such

[General User]

Since this thread has touched upon altruism and it's exact relationship to human nature (a subject I'm very interested in), here is a link an excerpt from SuperFreakonomics published in the NYTimes.

In other words...  I saw an excuse to post a link to some of the weird crap I'm into.

Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism
http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Modifié par General User, 28 février 2012 - 12:25 .

[Stokie Stallion]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Compromise doesn't contradict dimplomacy.

It's at the very  foundation of it! How do you think so many treaties are signed?

-I think we are speaking past eachother. I agree that compromise is the foundtation of diplomacy.

And now that I think of it, yes... I would likely have to conceed that some major discussions ingame are settled diplomatically by a paragon choise. I resent that actually .

Pretty much plays into my "evil/selfish is always hamfisted and stupid" phobia about most RPGs / Storydriven games. I do not see any reason why there could not be a very elequent, intelligent and diplomatic renegade option... after all... as you comment... IRL things are much more the other way around.

I always felt the renegade options tend to be small minded more than "badass" im pure paragon but i do see myself using most renegade cutscenes jsut because they're funny.

[DJBare]

Well, this cuddly paragon is looking forward to kicking cerburus ass from one side of the galaxy to the other, and as my bullet round goes through TIMs head and out the back, the last words he will hear will be "Don't ever call me short sighted"

[Arppis]

DJBare wrote...

Well, this cuddly paragon is looking forward to kicking cerburus ass from one side of the galaxy to the other, and as my bullet round goes through TIMs head and out the back, the last words he will hear will be "Don't ever call me short sighted"

Damn right.

And then... "I should go." -->

Modifié par Arppis, 28 février 2012 - 12:31 .

[ApplesauceBandit]

Oooh someones pissy.

[Ajwol Semreth]

Stokie Stallion wrote...
I always felt the renegade options tend to be more small minded than "badass"

Pretty much this. Would rather be weepy and soft-hearted than a raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur. Renegade Shep is an arse. I still use some of the Renegade interupts, but not many.

I could see some of the Paragon decisions coming back to bite us though, but I'm fine with that just as long as the Renegedes also get theirs...

[Farbautisonn]

-Who wants to say it? 

[QuarkZ26]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

"You cannot fix the worlds problems in a day. You must start with a single step."

Fixing problems in our country helped to fix problems elsewhere. DId you know MLK was directly influenced by Ghandi? And Ghandi by Jesus?

Still, they didn't become who they were just out of the blue. They didn't wake up one morning thinking "Man, the world sucks and i gotta do something about it!":

No, Indians were badly treated and so were Black people, and that's why they started to fight.

Did it have a repercution in some other place of the world? Most likely yes.
Did they do it for that? No, they just happen to want to change things that were impacting them directly.

Ghandi was an indian fighting for indians
MLK was a black fighting for blacks
And Jesus was fighting for the Jews (since according to the bible the Jews are the people of God)

These are great people (although one can only speculate about Jesus), but don't try to give them credits for things they didn't do.
Influenced others? Sure Was that the primary goal? No.

[Sweet Dirge]

truestatic wrote...

I myself am primarily a paragon player. When I try to do a dark side playthrough, or a renegade playthrough, or whatever, I usually find it pretty difficult to follow through on. It doesn't appeal to me.

That's beside the point though. The point is, I don't really know what the results of a renegade playthrough are. Since this thread is about how everything always sucks for Renegades, and it's not fair that Paragons always have everything work out for them, and Paragons should suffer the consequences of not being able to sacrifice the few to save the many, or the consequences of placing their trust in the untrustworthy, I'm curious to ask.

What exactly have been the dramatic negative consequences of playing a Renegade character?

In Mass Effect 2 every pro Cerberus choice was a renegade choice.  Take the Collector Base for example.  If you legitimatly feel that saving Collector tech is the best way for fighting the Reapers it seems you will be punished in ME3.  Even if you were mostly Paragon you can see the benefit of learning from a more advanced enemy.  But that was one of the most disapointing revelations in the Mass Effect 3 marketing; every single pro-Cerberus choice you made in ME2 was the wrong choice. Every single one.

I for one, would love the Rachni Queen, the re-written Geth, the colonists on Feros and every other bad guy you let live come back and bite you in the ass.

[BlueMagitek]

AlexXIV wrote...

Balak wasn't a slaver as far as I know he was a 'freedom fighter' (some say terrorist). The difference is, he was a person with ideals. People with ideals which lead them on the wrong road I usually consider 'misguided'. While the slaver guy (who I killed for being a slaver) are oportunists. They don't believe in anything aside from their own advantage.

That the slaver didn't like Balak because Balak lied to him about taking slaves when it really was a terrorism mission speaks more for Balak imo. Because he is probably no slaver. Hard to say since slavery seems to be legal in Batarian space. Anyway, I'd rather trust an idealist to learn from mistakes than an opportunist. Because and idealist who was wrong and notices may change. An opportunist will always just look out for himself alone.

I still would have killed Balak. Actually I did it because that was the first plan. To kill him and free the hoestages before the bombs go off. Sadly that failed, so basically in a roleplay sense I would have gone with the renegade choice this time. But I really couldn't take the burned corpses of the crew so I reloaded and went paragon. That's why it is hard for me to roleplay everything in single player games, Bioware games especially. The smart choice is not always recognized as such. You kind of have to assume that the paragon will work out to make any sense to the game at all.

I mean some of you people insist to impose your logic over the logic of the game. As in declaring that renegade is the reasonable guy and paragon not. But frankly, the game wins. Because you as a player, unless you can rewrite the plot, can only accept what the game gives you. I'd rather not be a frustrated renegade player spending my time writing hate posts vs paragons on the BSN. So I accept the reality the game provides me as the reality that counts in the ME universe. Even if irl I would probably act different.

It's just ... if you live in a fairy tale, then you better accept the rules that work in fairy tales.

Balak may or may not have been a slaver.  He seemed to sell himself as one to get some of his men though.  Who said he learned anything?  He almost got away with it, and if you let him go, he can just try it again; he knows Shepard's weakness now.

Actually you're right.  He just seemed to be in it for the job, but based on the Batarian training regiments (which are apparently insane); still, he just signed up for what he thought was a slave grab.  And yes, he was an opportunist.  But that isn't a bad thing.  What was he?  A slaver.  But Balak?  Balak was way beyond just slaver level when it comes to evil.  He was not only going to kill millions of people, but make the planet a wasteland.

That doesn't mean that the choice itself wasn't smart.  Just because things don't always work out doesn't mean that you should just choose the other option.  Stick to your guns.  Just pretend for a moment that you don't know that the Blue option is going to always end in your benefit & that the red one is treated as a non-import; you will still make some paragon choices, probably some renegade ones too.  Except they'll be your roleplayed choices; what you actually believe (or what your Shep believes) is the best choice.

There are reasonable paragon & renegade options; it's just that the reasonable renegade ones (outside of combat) are never really acknowledged.  And you don't need to be renegade to be frustrated; anyone who chooses a path that isn't blue can say the same.

[AlexXIV]

BlueMagitek wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Balak wasn't a slaver as far as I know he was a 'freedom fighter' (some say terrorist). The difference is, he was a person with ideals. People with ideals which lead them on the wrong road I usually consider 'misguided'. While the slaver guy (who I killed for being a slaver) are oportunists. They don't believe in anything aside from their own advantage.

That the slaver didn't like Balak because Balak lied to him about taking slaves when it really was a terrorism mission speaks more for Balak imo. Because he is probably no slaver. Hard to say since slavery seems to be legal in Batarian space. Anyway, I'd rather trust an idealist to learn from mistakes than an opportunist. Because and idealist who was wrong and notices may change. An opportunist will always just look out for himself alone.

I still would have killed Balak. Actually I did it because that was the first plan. To kill him and free the hoestages before the bombs go off. Sadly that failed, so basically in a roleplay sense I would have gone with the renegade choice this time. But I really couldn't take the burned corpses of the crew so I reloaded and went paragon. That's why it is hard for me to roleplay everything in single player games, Bioware games especially. The smart choice is not always recognized as such. You kind of have to assume that the paragon will work out to make any sense to the game at all.

I mean some of you people insist to impose your logic over the logic of the game. As in declaring that renegade is the reasonable guy and paragon not. But frankly, the game wins. Because you as a player, unless you can rewrite the plot, can only accept what the game gives you. I'd rather not be a frustrated renegade player spending my time writing hate posts vs paragons on the BSN. So I accept the reality the game provides me as the reality that counts in the ME universe. Even if irl I would probably act different.

It's just ... if you live in a fairy tale, then you better accept the rules that work in fairy tales.

Balak may or may not have been a slaver.  He seemed to sell himself as one to get some of his men though.  Who said he learned anything?  He almost got away with it, and if you let him go, he can just try it again; he knows Shepard's weakness now.

Actually you're right.  He just seemed to be in it for the job, but based on the Batarian training regiments (which are apparently insane); still, he just signed up for what he thought was a slave grab.  And yes, he was an opportunist.  But that isn't a bad thing.  What was he?  A slaver.  But Balak?  Balak was way beyond just slaver level when it comes to evil.  He was not only going to kill millions of people, but make the planet a wasteland.

That doesn't mean that the choice itself wasn't smart.  Just because things don't always work out doesn't mean that you should just choose the other option.  Stick to your guns.  Just pretend for a moment that you don't know that the Blue option is going to always end in your benefit & that the red one is treated as a non-import; you will still make some paragon choices, probably some renegade ones too.  Except they'll be your roleplayed choices; what you actually believe (or what your Shep believes) is the best choice.

There are reasonable paragon & renegade options; it's just that the reasonable renegade ones (outside of combat) are never really acknowledged.  And you don't need to be renegade to be frustrated; anyone who chooses a path that isn't blue can say the same.

The problem was I made a wrong call when I attacked Balak. That was the excuse. But the game acted as if I wanted to justify it. If I could have said hey sorry. I didn't want to sacrifice the hostages but I thought I could take him out before he blows everything up rather than trying to disarm the charges of which I don't even know when they blow up. But no, the only things I could say was a justificationf for letting hostages die or not letting Balak get away. The game couldn't even understand my true motivation and call it a fail. That's the problem I have with roleplaying in single player games. If you roleplay with other people then they understand. But stupid NPCs can only understand what the devs made them understand. That's why roleplaying doesn't really work if you only have two paths to go down of which one is labeled 'fail' and the other 'win'.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 février 2012 - 12:49 .

[JamieCOTC]

"It is not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail."

That's pretty much what I hear in threads like these. For the record, I play both paragon and renegade and all manner in between.

[Dave of Canada]

Most Paragon decisions are about trust, the Renegade option often involves not trusting that individual. If the Paragon always receives the free pass with no consequences, the Renegade decision becomes invalid and there's no point in doing it.

Which is exactly how ME3 handled it, though I assume nobody really cares at this point as most (not all) of you only want happy endings and would metagame regardless.