5 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

I don't get it because letting the terrorists just walk away is more of a renegade option, it gives them the chance to just go out and do it again, it doesn't make any sense. You don't negoitate with terrorists

[Lavaeolus]

Renegade is that (ruthless) pragmatic side, the one that sacrifices three to save millions. Paragon is an idealist, one who doesn't want to sacrifice anyone at all.

They don't always correspond to a "good" option and an "evil" option. I mean, yes, 9 out of 10 times they do, but in this case, the lines are a bit more blurred. One of the better choices in the games, I think, though it does fall to the later "Paragon always turns out to be right" problems by ME3.

Modifié par Mr Maniac, 08 mai 2013 - 08:45 .

[Violent_Lucidity]

You get the same outcome if you choose to let the hostages die, but wound and arrest Balak instead of killing him, so...

[Lavaeolus]

@above: Yeah, but you get that outcome at the cost of three lives.

And one of those lives had a name and everything.

[JohnZ117]

Mr Maniac wrote...

Renegade is that (ruthless) pragmatic side, the one that sacrifices three to save millions. Paragon is an idealist, one who doesn't want to sacrifice anyone at all.

They don't always correspond to a "good" option and an "evil" option. I mean, yes, 9 out of 10 times they do, but in this case, the lines are a bit more blurred. One of the better choices in the games, I think, though it does fall to the later "Paragon always turns out to be right" problems by ME3.

Actually,  you get a quest in in which (ME3 spoiler) a Batarian is haclking into various terminals you need to find and halt.  If Balak got away, it's him and he's responsible for over a hundred more deaths.  If Balak's dead, then it's just someone who has been stealing for his people. 

[cap and gown]

JohnZ117 wrote...

Mr Maniac wrote...

Renegade is that (ruthless) pragmatic side, the one that sacrifices three to save millions. Paragon is an idealist, one who doesn't want to sacrifice anyone at all.

They don't always correspond to a "good" option and an "evil" option. I mean, yes, 9 out of 10 times they do, but in this case, the lines are a bit more blurred. One of the better choices in the games, I think, though it does fall to the later "Paragon always turns out to be right" problems by ME3.

Actually,  you get a quest in in which (ME3 spoiler) a Batarian is haclking into various terminals you need to find and halt.  If Balak got away, it's him and he's responsible for over a hundred more deaths.  If Balak's dead, then it's just someone who has been stealing for his people. 

From the point of view of the overall war effort, however, it turns out the renegade path in ME1 is better. I killed Balak in ME1 thinking that I am not going to let some terrorist go and let him do this again. When I got to ME3 I found out that meant the Batarian fleet was 1/3 weaker than if Balak had lived (150 if Balak alive, 100 if not).

At least Bioware didn't make it so that the Paragon path was always the better path. There is a mix of outcomes where sometimes the Renegade path produces a better result.

Still, I don't really like the whole renegade/paragon thing. Sheppard should be judged by his/her actions, not words. Did Sheppard keep his/her promises? Can people in general trust Sheppard? And who in particular can trust Sheppard? Sheppard should be forced to choose allies so that he/she will be seen as either a friend for foe depending on faction alliances. Something that is seen as renegade by the Salarians might be seen as paragon by the Krogan.