307 réponses à ce sujet

[CynicalShep]

Funkdrspot wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Oh please, not the "I Tali" vs "Geth are human, too" argument again. Geth shouldn't have accepted help from the Reapers and Quarian Admirals are suicidal morons

i dunno if you know this or are just ignoring it but the geth only accepted help from the reapers b/c they got real stupid real fast when the quarians destroyed the geths new supership. itd be like jumping from einstein to forest gump in a nano second while losing a fight that will likely end in your extinction

Yes, and the Quarians would have done the exact same thing if they were in the same position. The Geth arc had a different writer in ME2 and ME3, hence the switch from "Geth build their own future" to "Reaper upgrades? F*ck yeah!".

What I was saying is that the name of he thread is "Paragon and Renegade", not "Synthetics vs organics"

[David7204]

CynicalShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Games with decisions should always morality in them. And there should always to consequences to that. The only difference is whether it's directly visible or not.

I think people who say morality systems are bad are drastically overestimating the impact removing them would have. The 'good' choice is almost always obvious (as it should be) - save the most people, don't be selfish or cruel, do the right thing. You don't need a morality system for that to be clear.

No they shouldn't. I agree about the consequences, however. Some people need to see that shooting a civie in the foot is bad. Also, something ME overlooked - giving a criminal a loaded gun and turning your back on him is usually a bad idea. Obsessive-compulsive paragons should have been punished as well(sometimes the short way is the right way).

I would much rather have an influence system like KOTOR or even TOR. Push that merc of the Dantius tower - Jack likes it, Kaidan dislikes it, Garrus doesn't give a damn (just an example, your opinion may be different).

Sometimes. A very, very few sometimes.

If heroism is meaningful, 'good' choices ultimately need to lead to the best outcome.

As for having 'ambiguous' choices, that doesn't work near as well as a lot of people think it does.

Modifié par David7204, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

estebanus wrote...

I think that renegades should go back to the ME1-style "The end justifies the means" kind of personality instead of the "Sociopathic maniac" we've got in ME3.

I agree. We got kind of screwed in 3. It was either being a suitwetter or psycho. Who the hell wrote the script?

[Dr_Extrem]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I think that renegades should go back to the ME1-style "The end justifies the means" kind of personality instead of the "Sociopathic maniac" we've got in ME3.

I agree. We got kind of screwed in 3. It was either being a suitwetter or psycho. Who the hell wrote the script?

yeah .. me 3 was like:

paragon: goes into a dark corner to cut him/herself
renegade: drags a poor person into a dark corner to cut him/her.

[Seboist]

I saw nothing "Psycho" with Renegade in ME3.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Games with decisions should always morality in them. And there should always to consequences to that. The only difference is whether it's directly visible or not.
I think people who say morality systems are bad are drastically overestimating the impact removing them would have. The 'good' choice is almost always obvious (as it should be) - save the most people, don't be selfish or cruel, do the right thing. You don't need a morality system for that to be clear.

No they shouldn't. I agree about the consequences, however. Some people need to see that shooting a civie in the foot is bad. Also, something ME overlooked - giving a criminal a loaded gun and turning your back on him is usually a bad idea. Obsessive-compulsive paragons should have been punished as well(sometimes the short way is the right way). 
I would much rather have an influence system like KOTOR or even TOR. Push that merc of the Dantius tower - Jack likes it, Kaidan dislikes it, Garrus doesn't give a damn (just an example, your opinion may be different). 

Sometimes. A very, very few sometimes. 
If heroism is meaningful, 'good' choices ultimately need to lead to the best outcome.
As for having 'ambiguous' choices, that doesn't work near as well as a lot of people think it does. 

Heroism is great but no war has been won through compassion and/or charity. Example: letting Balak go in ME. He was an influential psychopath that hated humans. You let him go and he will drop an asteroid on another colony which will suffer because you decided to save a few civies. And persuasion is vastly overrated throughout the series. Shepard: "You are a criminal, you are bad and you should feel bad!". Random criminal: "You are right. I understand the error of my ways and I will stop being bad. In fact, I will open a dog-shelter tomorrow"It doesn't work like that and it never will. Going the extra-mile to help someone should be rewarded. Making bad calls because "shining paragon of compassion and love" shouldn't. Long story short - naïveté should be punished.

Modifié par CynicalShep, 29 janvier 2013 - 11:46 .

[Seboist]

CynicalShep wrote...

Shepard: "You are a criminal, you are bad and you should feel bad!".
Random criminal: "You are right. I understand the error of my ways and I will stop being bad. In fact, I will open a dog-shelter tomorrow"
It doesn't work like that and it never will. Going the extra-mile to help someone should be rewarded. Making bad calls because "shining paragon of compassion and love" shouldn't. Long story short - naïveté should be punished.

In the whacky world of the ME sequels it does. Based on one choice you can make in ME1 you can transform aspiring crime lord Helena Blake who had Shepard assasinate her rivals into a social worker(lol).

[David7204]

That is nonsense. Shepard never says anything of the sort. The arguments he gives against criminals and whatnot are very well reasoned and solid.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

That is nonsense. Shepard never says anything of the sort. The arguments he gives against criminals and whatnot are very well reasoned and solid.

<_<

[CynicalShep]

Seboist wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Shepard: "You are a criminal, you are bad and you should feel bad!".
Random criminal: "You are right. I understand the error of my ways and I will stop being bad. In fact, I will open a dog-shelter tomorrow"
It doesn't work like that and it never will. Going the extra-mile to help someone should be rewarded. Making bad calls because "shining paragon of compassion and love" shouldn't. Long story short - naïveté should be punished.

In the whacky world of the ME sequels it does. Based on one choice you can make in ME1 you can transform aspiring crime lord Helena Blake who had Shepard assasinate her rivals into a social worker(lol).

Or turning your back on the merc leader on the Dantius tower and walking away(after blasting through dozens of other mercs).

[David7204]

You know, I find it rather ridiculous that people continually whine that the game is all about shooting, and yet complain about the opportunity to use dialogue to resolve situations. The charm and intimidate options are very-well written.

[David7204]

CynicalShep wrote...

Seboist wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Shepard: "You are a criminal, you are bad and you should feel bad!".
Random criminal: "You are right. I understand the error of my ways and I will stop being bad. In fact, I will open a dog-shelter tomorrow"
It doesn't work like that and it never will. Going the extra-mile to help someone should be rewarded. Making bad calls because "shining paragon of compassion and love" shouldn't. Long story short - naïveté should be punished.

In the whacky world of the ME sequels it does. Based on one choice you can make in ME1 you can transform aspiring crime lord Helena Blake who had Shepard assasinate her rivals into a social worker(lol).

Or turning your back on the merc leader on the Dantius tower and walking away(after blasting through dozens of other mercs).

No. First of all, there's zero evidence that that particular merc was any kind of leader. Secondly, Shepard gives his word that he'll let him go if the merc gives him information. You don't go back on something like that. Like you just said, it's a single guy. Shepard's just gunned down dozens. He's not going to cause a problem.

[Dr_Extrem]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I find it rather ridiculous that people continually whine that the game is all about shooting, and yet complain about the opportunity to use dialogue to resolve situations. The charm and intimidate options are very-well written.

the intimidate-options in me2 were cool - i give you that ... some were a bit flat .. but still cool.

especially the merc in the dantius tower .. i bet he had to change his pants after my shep cracked the glass behind him.

[Seboist]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I find it rather ridiculous that people continually whine that the game is all about shooting, and yet complain about the opportunity to use dialogue to resolve situations. The charm and intimidate options are very-well written.

Yes, I especially like how the "charm" option with Harrot the Elcor merchant in 2 involves threatening to break his legs. I love how consistent it all is.

[Festilence]

I think having Morality "Scores" such as Paragon & Renegade from Mass Effect are interesting and in a sense fun, but at the same time, I think if a game is to deal with choice/consequence, morality etc in the best way possible, then there should be no indicators, no "Scores", just choices, as they are, for you to decide what to do and for you to take in and analyse how it makes other characters and the world of the game react/change.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Seboist wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Shepard: "You are a criminal, you are bad and you should feel bad!".
Random criminal: "You are right. I understand the error of my ways and I will stop being bad. In fact, I will open a dog-shelter tomorrow"
It doesn't work like that and it never will. Going the extra-mile to help someone should be rewarded. Making bad calls because "shining paragon of compassion and love" shouldn't. Long story short - naïveté should be punished.

In the whacky world of the ME sequels it does. Based on one choice you can make in ME1 you can transform aspiring crime lord Helena Blake who had Shepard assasinate her rivals into a social worker(lol).

Or turning your back on the merc leader on the Dantius tower and walking away(after blasting through dozens of other mercs).

No. First of all, there's zero evidence that that particular merc was any kind of leader. Secondly, Shepard gives his word that he'll let him go if the merc gives him information. You don't go back on something like that. Like you just said, it's a single guy. Shepard's just gunned down dozens. He's not going to cause a problem.

Bender would like a word with you. :innocent:

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Festilence wrote...

I think having Morality "Scores" such as Paragon & Renegade from Mass Effect are interesting and in a sense fun, but at the same time, I think if a game is to deal with choice/consequence, morality etc in the best way possible, then there should be no indicators, no "Scores", just choices, as they are, for you to decide what to do and for you to take in and analyse how it makes other characters and the world of the game react/change.

The problem is that if you don't do it "right" you don't get to get those critical "red & blue" choices with Miranda & Jack or Legion & Tali later in the game. That's a huge flaw in the system.

Helena Blake a social worker. In my games she works for Aria. Clearly I'm a better criminal than she is.

And someone actually let that merc go? 

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:12 .

[MegaSovereign]

With the way Mass Effect is played by a lot of players, there might as well be no choices. I rarely see people mixing and matching Paragon/Renegade or role-playing appropriately. Granted, the first two games encourage sticking with one or the other so I don't entirely put the blame on the masses.

This may come off as superficial but I propose that Bioware randomizes the positions of the options on the dialogue wheel so that way you can keep the morality mechanic intact without reducing the motivation to read through dialogue options and role-play accordingly.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:17 .

[Steelcan]

@David, you say you can't go back on you word like that?
You can betray, the quarians, geth, krogan, Cerberus, and the Council. But not one merc?

[Seboist]

I always killed that merc. Now, if there was an incapacitate or capture option things might've gone differently but such as it was, he gots to die.

[DeinonSlayer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

With the way Mass Effect is played by a lot of players, there might as well be no choices. I rarely see people mixing and matching Paragon/Renegade or role-playing appropriately. Granted, the first two games encourage sticking with one or the other so I don't entirely put the blame on the masses.

This may come off as superficial but I propose that Bioware randomizes the positions of the options on the dialogue wheel so that way you can keep the morality mechanic intact without reducing the the need to read through dialogue options and role-play accordingly.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I never do pure paragon/renegade playthroughs. I've always managed to mix and match things and not be locked out of crucial options. Granted, I had to do new game+ in ME1 to get enough intimidation points to get Jeong to back down, but other than that...

Every "let's play" video I've seen on YouTube has been pure-paragon, though, and from the way some people talk around here, it seems a lot of people do the same thing. As I see it, all that accomplishes is deferring judgement about what's right or wrong to the writers instead of thinking for one's self.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:26 .

[Steelcan]

Most of my play throughs lean renegade.

That said I do have a 99% paragon run.

[Seboist]

MegaSovereign wrote...

With the way Mass Effect is played by a lot of players, there might as well be no choices. I rarely see people mixing and matching Paragon/Renegade or role-playing appropriately. Granted, the first two games encourage sticking with one or the other so I don't entirely put the blame on the masses.

This may come off as superficial but I propose that Bioware randomizes the positions of the options on the dialogue wheel so that way you can keep the morality mechanic intact without reducing the motivation to read through dialogue options and role-play accordingly.

Why should anyone play differently when there's no real difference between the two or in the case of Renegade just get less content and nonsense that invalidates your choice(ex. Reapers pulling another Queen out of their ass)?

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Most of my play throughs lean renegade.

That said I do have a 99% paragon run.

Where'd the 1% come from?

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Most of my play throughs lean renegade.

That said I do have a 99% paragon run.

Where'd the 1% come from?

. Destroying the heretics:devil: