9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Make no mistake: I like being the principled hero. But the cost-free nature of it is, well, ridiculous. And the way it works in practice is the player gets their ego stroked a lot, often in a way that feels juvenile.

I like being one, too, occasionally. What I don't like is being told it's the only way to proceed to get an emotionally satisfying outcome. It's really hard enough to be pragmatic in the first place. That's one thing people often don't get: making a pragmatic decision against what you feel is hard and painful, and doing what feels good is really the easy way out. If there is no other cost to being principled, then it is a get out of jail free card, and if there is never an emotionally satisfying outcome for a pragmatic decision, then the story is ideologically biased as well as unrealistic to a degree that damages suspension of disbelief. My tapical reaction is "things don't work that way".

[Obadiah]

ME1 starts out in the middle of a massacre. Jenkins gets killed, Nihilus gets killed, Saren escaped, the Council doesn't believe Shepard (at one point says its the Alliance's fault)... I thought the ego stroke was just there to mitigate the whole ongoing crapfest of a situation.

[jtav]

What bugs me is the game conflates the practical and ethical dimension. "We need to concentrate on Sovereign" is in no way a moral judgement. But it's riding in and saving the day--against all common sense--that's rewarded.

[Farangbaa]

I'd say ME2 had the opportunity to go with a transhumanism theme, but declined to do so.  In fact, the Lazarus Project was specifically meant to bring Shepard back exactly as before.  Being a cyborg was considered no more transhumanist as having sophisticated prostheses.

 

Which brings me back to the cringing conversation with EDI in ME3 where she states that your brain needs to be synthetic to be considered transhuman.

 

I don't think I've ever wtf'ed so hard in my life.

[CronoDragoon]

Saying something could happen is not a blanket statement.  But the Catalyst is saying something will happen, which is.

 

That is not what the term blanket statement means. Blanket statements are "all X are Y." Therefore, "all created rebel against their creators" is a blanket statement.

[Ryriena]

I like being one, too, occasionally. What I don't like is being told it's the only way to proceed to get an emotionally satisfying outcome. It's really hard enough to be pragmatic in the first place. That's one thing people often don't get: making a pragmatic decision against what you feel is hard and painful, and doing what feels good is really the easy way out. If there is no other cost to being principled, then it is a get out of jail free card, and if there is never an emotionally satisfying outcome for a pragmatic decision, then the story is ideologically biased as well as unrealistic to a degree that damages suspension of disbelief. My tapical reaction is "things don't work that way".

Exactly, I base things on my Shepard's background and shape her views from that one of my Shepard's is former Mosqd and Israeli I changed the earthborn's and background. She had to make tough choices but she did make them like in ME3 she saved Grunt instead of the real Racinni Queen. She's more loyal to her crew members than some random character.

[CronoDragoon]

Yikes! Did people really see a "follow your heart and everything will be ok" vibe in the previous games? I must think about these conversation decisions too much.

 

Only if you have an idealistic heart.

 

Realistically, if BW wanted to make the P/R system work, they'd have to keep you guessing what consequences would occur. Always having Renegade outcomes better at the cost of morality would be a better balance but just as predictable. Ideally you have some situations where Paragon leads to a better outcome, and some where Renegade does.

 

I'd rather BW not bother with the P/R system at all, though. What goal was there to it after the Reputation system was introduced and you didn't need to game your responses to build points? You can still have reactive dialogue without having red or blue options that are clearly better than the white ones. Dragon Age does this very well. You can also see promise in the case of Wrex in ME1 where getting his family armor leads to him backing down later. That is good reactive choice that doesn't depend on balancing idealism and pragmatism.

[Vigilant111]

That's exactly what it is: jtav defined it very well. It is exactly a get out of jail free card. 'Do what's morally right and you'll always succeed'. It's not based off of any sort of pragmatism or practical setting. It's basically saying that if you're the shiny golden hero, you'll always succeed. Like Ieldra, that's one thing I liked about the ending; it challenged them and put them in a position that couldn't be solved just by being a 'good' guy. 

 

Pragmatism and paragon are not mutually exclusive, sometimes when sticks don't work, try carrots. Your assertion also does not explain why sometimes renegades do immoral things, yet they achieve more than paragons do, like convincing Mordin to fake the cure and lie to krogans at the same time to gain both salarian and krogan support. The path of a paragon is long and arduous as opposed to a quick and easy path for a renegade, credit goes to where credit is due, if it is a jail-free card, well, then they have earned it

[Iakus]

That is not what the term blanket statement means. Blanket statements are "all X are Y." Therefore, "all created rebel against their creators" is a blanket statement.

 

Then it's an absolutist statement, if you prefer.

 

But it's still a hasty generalization fallacy

[Iakus]

Only if you have an idealistic heart.

 

Realistically, if BW wanted to make the P/R system work, they'd have to keep you guessing what consequences would occur. Always having Renegade outcomes better at the cost of morality would be a better balance but just as predictable. Ideally you have some situations where Paragon leads to a better outcome, and some where Renegade does.

 

 

Or where both methods work (or can work) but Renegade, being the more "get it done whatever it takes" mode, would have a generally easier, if more violent time getting things done while paragon would have a longer, possibly more difficult path.

 

Either way is valid, it's just a matter of what kind of character you're willing to roleplay.

 

Though this may be getting OT

[CronoDragoon]

The path of a paragon is long and arduous as opposed to a quick and easy path for a renegade, credit goes to where credit is due, if it is a jail-free card, well, then they have earned it

 

Not in Mass Effect it ain't.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Exactly, I base things on my Shepard's background and shape her views from that one of my Shepard's is former Mosqd and Israeli I changed the earthborn's and background. She had to make tough choices but she did make them like in ME3 she saved Grunt instead of the real Racinni Queen. She's more loyal to her crew members than some random character.

 

I'm different. Minus a very small pool of exceptions, I'm loyal to my friends and companions insofar as to how useful they are too me. I was perfectly willing to blow Mordin away if it got me the Salarian aid I wanted by not curing the genophage (and Mordin is one of those characters my Shepard considers to be one of his closest friends and allies), as well as stab Wrex in the back (though this is also ideological, since aside from wanting Salarian aid which would be more valuable than a Krogan army, I legitimately believe that the Krogan are bane on the galaxy and must be eradicated). If I couldn't get peace between the Geth and Quarians (out of the logic that two fleets is better than one and I have more bodies to throw at the Reapers), I'd let the Quarians burn easily (again, this is partially ideological since I hold them to be guilty of all the bad they have suffered collectively, as well as balancing the utility between either species and easily coming to the conclusion that the Geth are far more valuable) and tell Tali to take a hike if she tried to stop me (the same Tali that essentially had an undying loyalty and hero-worship crush on me). I judged the Rachni Queen to be more valuable than a team of Krogan, though the only one that really mattered (Grunt) joined me in the end, so that was a no-brainer. Hell, the only time I take the emotional decision is when I save Ashley instead of Kaidan, not out of pragmatism, but out of a glorified desire to get laid. When I save Kaidan, I'm being straight on that; Kaidan is much, much, much more valuable than Ashley.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Pragmatism and paragon are not mutually exclusive, sometimes when sticks don't work, try carrots. Your assertion also does not explain why sometimes renegades do immoral things, yet they achieve more than paragons do, like convincing Mordin to fake the cure and lie to krogans at the same time to gain both salarian and krogan support. The path of a paragon is long and arduous as opposed to a quick and easy path for a renegade, credit goes to where credit is due, if it is a jail-free card, well, then they have earned it

 

I'm not saying that they are. As a pragmatist, and as an unfettered machiavellian true-neutral byronic pseudo-sociopath nominal hero, I recognize the practical choices that get me the results I want are usually the 'paragon' things that you might consider moral (I don't think any renegade option that achieves more than a paragon one is immoral, since I base my morality on results alone rather than on actions and the spirit behind them).

 

The problem is (and you're deliberately ignoring this for the practical aspect I've noticed) that the game doesn't define it in terms like what you're saying. It's purely ideological, and yes, the game is trying to shill the paragon route as the better option all the time. The game is very heavily ideologically biased. 

 

It is a scot-free get out of jail card with nothing behind it. Don't ever say that being a paragon is hard and arduous in the ME games. That's not representative of how the game portrays it, and is more of a reflection of your personal opinion behind the ideal. The game makes it clear that if you stick to your (conventionally moral) conscious, you'll prevail. Others are stating that they wished to see it differently.

 

Personally, my opinion is why take the long and hard path when you can take the quick and easy one? As long as my goals are met, I have a clean healthy conscious. 

[Ryriena]

I'm different. Minus a very small pool of exceptions, I'm loyal to my friends and companions insofar as to how useful they are too me. I was perfectly willing to blow Mordin away if it got me the Salarian aid I wanted by not curing the genophage (and Mordin is one of those characters my Shepard considers to be one of his closest friends and allies), as well as stab Wrex in the back (though this is also ideological, since aside from wanting Salarian aid which would be more valuable than a Krogan army, I legitimately believe that the Krogan are bane on the galaxy and must be eradicated). If I couldn't get peace between the Geth and Quarians (out of the logic that two fleets is better than one and I have more bodies to throw at the Reapers), I'd let the Quarians burn easily (again, this is partially ideological since I hold them to be guilty of all the bad they have suffered collectively, as well as balancing the utility between either species and easily coming to the conclusion that the Geth are far more valuable) and tell Tali to take a hike if she tried to stop me (the same Tali that essentially had an undying loyalty and hero-worship crush on me). I judged the Rachni Queen to be more valuable than a team of Krogan, though the only one that really mattered (Grunt) joined me in the end, so that was a no-brainer. Hell, the only time I take the emotional decision is when I save Ashley instead of Kaidan, not out of pragmatism, but out of a glorified desire to get laid. When I save Kaidan, I'm being straight on that; Kaidan is much, much, much more valuable than Ashley.

I tailored her to fit a more spacer background as such she's more loyal to her crew Mosqd installed that on her.. However my Shepard's killed Ashely all the time, as I value the mission objectives more so than to save a bunch of Salarins. Having deveopled feelings for Kaiden didn't help much. Laughs

[Vigilant111]

I'm not saying that they are. As a pragmatist, and as an unfettered machiavellian true-neutral byronic pseudo-sociopath nominal hero, I recognize the practical choices that get me the results I want are usually the 'paragon' things that you might consider moral (I don't think any renegade option that achieves more than a paragon one is immoral, since I base my morality on results alone rather than on actions and the spirit behind them).

 

The problem is (and you're deliberately ignoring this for the practical aspect I've noticed) that the game doesn't define it in terms like what you're saying. It's purely ideological, and yes, the game is trying to shill the paragon route as the better option all the time. The game is very heavily ideologically biased. 

 

It is a scot-free get out of jail card with nothing behind it. Don't ever say that being a paragon is hard and arduous in the ME games. That's not representative of how the game portrays it, and is more of a reflection of your personal opinion behind the ideal. The game makes it clear that if you stick to your (conventionally moral) conscious, you'll prevail. Others are stating that they wished to see it differently.

 

Personally, my opinion is why take the long and hard path when you can take the quick and easy one? As long as my goals are met, I have a clean healthy conscious. 

 

What am I deliberately ignoring exactly? That paragons are impractical? Sure, to a certain extent, but then so are renegades, sometimes, I mean, it isn't sensible to kill off certain things and forfeit the chance to achieve better results

 

Shepard puts himself and his team in danger to rescue a quarian admiral in order to secure peace, I call that hard and arduous. You may assert that renegade actions are hard and arduous also, if you so choose, but you cannot tell me that I could not use the same words to describe a paragon

 

Others want the reputation meter gone, because dialogues, interrupts and actions were contentious and mislabeled, but this has nothing to do with defining "paragon" and "renegade" generally

 

By the "sticking to moral convention" statement I assume you meant people who got worse-off for flip-floping between moralities? I guess the removal of the reputation meter could fix that. You couldn't have meant that the game makes sticking to the paragon path is the only way to get things done and prevail, right?

 

Well, that is the question you should ask yourself, WHY take the long and hard path? WHY do it? Simple, be stronger, be better

 

I do agree with you that the game is heavily biased towards paragons, with respect to the imbalanced accessibility and consequential weight

[Farangbaa]

Shepard puts himself and his team in danger to rescue a quarian admiral in order to secure peace, I call that hard and arduous. You may assert that renegade actions are hard and arduous also, if you so choose, but you cannot tell me that I could not use the same words to describe a paragon

 

This would be a point if renegade Shepard doesn't save the admiral. But he does.

[Vigilant111]

This would be a point if renegade Shepard doesn't save the admiral. But he does.

 

Yeah. I guess that was me doing the mislabeling

 

EDIT: Though I read somewhere if you took the paragon option of sparing the heretics in ME2, u will find it harder to convince quarians to back down on Rannoch

[Ieldra]

Which brings me back to the cringing conversation with EDI in ME3 where she states that your brain needs to be synthetic to be considered transhuman.

 

I don't think I've ever wtf'ed so hard in my life.

Indeed so. I don't know if this is the result of ignorance or ideological prejudice, either one is bad. If you're a transhumanist, there's no end to the "I want to slap the writers" moments in ME3. Not that the rest of the trilogy was exactly friendly to the idea, but ME1 and ME2 were neutral and you could find your own stance towards it with the story not getting in your way. Between biotics and Shepard's "biosynthetic fusion", it was present as an implicit theme. In comparison, ME3 is outright reactionary.

[NeroonWilliams]

Then it's an absolutist statement, if you prefer.

 

But it's still a hasty generalization fallacy

I don't really think you can apply the term "hasty" to an intelligence that has been around for nigh on a BILLION years.  I think it's earned the right to make such statements after that period of observation.

[Iakus]

No, it hasn't

Catalyst has to show its work just like anyone else

[MassivelyEffective0730]

No, it hasn't

Catalyst has to show its work just like anyone else

 

It's not a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

But it does need to explain its conclusion, and how its problem is now relevant to me beyond how it ends the cycle. Actually, it really doesn't. I'm there for a separate purpose against the Reapers. The matter of how its solution is solved and circumstances behind aren't effective to my own needs. I acknowledge what it says, disregard what it says as not a concern at the moment, and shoot the pipe.

[NeroonWilliams]

It's not a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

But it does need to explain its conclusion, and how its problem is now relevant to me beyond how it ends the cycle.

One could most definitely argue that THIS is a "hasty generalization fallacy"

 

No, it hasn't

Catalyst has to show its work just like anyone else

Very well, prove to me that a single species (not sub-species) has ever been created through mutation.

 

Remember to show your work.

[NeroonWilliams]

Oh NO!

 

That took too long and now the Reapers have destroyed all of your hard work on the Crucible.

 

Too bad I didn't just TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

 

See, in the end it all boils down to what you believe.

[jtav]

This is, however, a story and not real life, If the game is whitewashing the geth and making EDI/Joker more functional than some of Shepard's romances, then yes, we need to know what's different. (Actually, we need a rewrite, but let's leave that aside). If you discard narrative logic, then you also discard the reason most of the ME2 squad isn't dead from vacuum exposure, and everyone who says Shep dies in all endings is right.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

 

Very well, prove to me that a single species (not sub-species) has ever been created through mutation.

 

Remember to show your work.

What? Every single species in the history of species has been created through mutation. 

For example, I'll give you Darwin's Finches. On the Galapagos, following a hurricane, there are new birds that have been pushed there from mainland South America. The ones with the best suited beaks to eat the food, manage to eat the food and pass along their genes that created their superior beak shape.Overtime, on the different islands, that one species that had been flown over has become many different species. 

Of course, this is oversimplified, and I should mention the specific role genetics play and the population frequency of certain traits, but I'm laxy.