1007 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

[Xilizhra]

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent, but apparently there are issues with Renegade.

[David7204]

CynicalShep wrote...

Just making sure: are you talking about the ME1&ME2 paragon/system or the ME3 one?

Both.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 01:00 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent,

Except on Legion's LM....

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent,

Except on Legion's LM....

That's still trying to keep as many people as possible alive.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent,

Except on Legion's LM....

That's still trying to keep as many people as possible alive.

Beginning of the level, "rewriting is unethical"

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent,

Except on Legion's LM....

That's still trying to keep as many people as possible alive.

Beginning of the level, "rewriting is unethical"

One minor hiccup.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Just making sure: are you talking about the ME1&ME2 paragon/system or the ME3 one?

Both.

So you really liked not being able to pick a choice because you haven't played a full paragon/renegade or have you never actually tried played a "mixed" character?

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

One minor hiccup.

So it isn't consistent

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

One minor hiccup.

So it isn't consistent

You'll hardly ever get anything perfect.

[David7204]

CynicalShep wrote...

So you really liked not being able to pick a choice because you haven't played a full paragon/renegade or have you never actually tried played a "mixed" character?

If you're talking about the system ME 2 uses, no, I don't particularly like that, although I also never had any trouble with it personally. But I'm not sure what your point is. ME 3 abandoned that system in favor of the reputation system.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

So you really liked not being able to pick a choice because you haven't played a full paragon/renegade or have you never actually tried played a "mixed" character?

If you're talking about the system ME 2 uses, no, I don't particularly like that, although I also never had any trouble with it personally. But I'm not sure what your point is. ME 3 abandoned that system in favor of the reputation system.

Which is precisely why I asked you to specify. While I dislike the lightside/darkside system they decided to imprement in ME, ME3 is an improvement over the first two games in that aspect.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What inconsistencies are we talking about?

I'm not really sure, as I've only played Paragon, which is perfectly consistent, but apparently there are issues with Renegade.

If by 'perfectly consistent' you mean 'can't decide whether Shepherd holds that moral principles should be consistently upheld despite the costs or tossed when it's personally inconvenient.'

Paragon Shepherd spends a lot of time lecturing others on following the rules, toleration of disagreeable viewpoints, and other high principles regardless of the benefits of breaking them... and then breaking the rules, enforcing their personal views regardless of what others might want, and generally sacrificing teleological ethics for pragmaticism when the cost moves from abstract/future to immediate.


I suppose you could say Paragon was perfectly consistent as a fair-weather idealist, but somehow I doubt hypocrisy or moral clay feet was what they intended.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 18 août 2013 - 02:49 .

[David7204]

I'd like to find me quotes of when Shepard lectures others on the virtures of 'toleration of disagreeable viewpoints.' Because I can't seem to recall a certain instance. Much less anything even remotely close to 'a lot of time' as you proclaim.

The only time I can recall Shepard lecturing someone on rules is when s/he tells a frustrated Garrus that "For the most part, the rules are there for a reason." Which doesn't make Shepard's tendency to break rules hypocrisy in the slightest.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 02:56 .

[Yanpo]

Why do people keep saying that refuse is the worst? Refusing means the cycle completes only one more time, but the next round of races actually manage to stop the Reapers thanks to the information left behind by Liara and Shepherd. They manage this without destroying the Mass Relays or the Citadel and without forcing everyone into Synthesis. I presume that the damage done to the Reapers in Shephard's cycle combined with the warning is what saved the next cycle. For me refuse it's number two next to control. Keeping to what I know about how AIs and uploading, Shepherd can easily re-upload herself back into her own body once she is done dismantling the Reapers. I know that is not the "canon" ending, but that is the most logical ending for control if I had had to write it.

I had high EMS, so perhaps that is why I got a decent refuse ending. Except instead of some grandfather speaking to a child as I've read from many in here, I got a mother from some unknown race talking to a child.

[KaiserShep]

Total extinction of your species as well as all the others you knew makes it the worst. I would say it's an immensely daft decision.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 août 2013 - 03:40 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Sadly I don't have the connection to use youtube anymore, so clips are not going to be here. I can make points on the general themes, however.

Preaching about the viewpoints is the crux of Shepherd's P/R exchanges with Ashely and Kaiden in ME1. It focuses primarily on what Humanity and the Council's role vis-a-vis each other should be, a theme reflected elsewhere. Renegade Shepard's political slant in ME1 is that 'they should act/listen to us Humans', along with the cross-series impatience/open disgust towards politicians, while Paragon Shepher'd political slant in ME1 counsels patience, understanding and deferring to the Council's viewpoints, and generally mitigating the well intentioned passion to make right by whoever the target of the hour is. Paragon Shepherd is frequently the conciliator/break on the passions of the well intentioned, particularly when advising squadmates to consider and value the views of the ever-disagreeable politicians.

ME1 in particular was consistent in making Paragon Shepherd an institutionalist who played things by the book, even with Spectre status. It was especially prominent with Garrus, starting from your response to his shooting the hostage taker to your advised approach of how to address Saren (take him in vs. take him out). The procedural viewpoint also gets reflected in the political field (recognizing and submitting to the Council as the source of political legitimacy: the what's-her-face interview: the dialogue when accepting the scan-the-keepers quest: the nature of appeals to authority and identification such as when identifying yourself to the Miri VI on Noveria). Paragon Shepherd's actions are pretty much a reflection of the Council's professed standards, whenever possible and applicable, and when conflicts of justice come up (Noveria's garage pass, the biotic cult, the lost Alliance probe, hunt for Saren, most of the dialogue with the drug lord lady, the Keepers quest), Paragon Shepherd advocates or pursues open accountability before the law. Even the Nasana Dantius trickery, while despised, isn't a case of legal wrongdoing. Shepherd also brings up or focuses on the rules when dealing with a number of the side quest characters such as the soldier's body quest, the keepers, the C-SEC questline, the gambling cheating device, and how one addresses Kohaku at the start of that questline. Generally, Paragon Shepherd focuses on the procedural/legalism aspects, while Renegade Shepherd focuses on the end-state of who benefits and how it can be done.


ME2 is where the system broke down, a reflection of the shift from an ideological morality system to a tone-based morality system. While it comes back from time to time (how to resolve Jacob's loyalty mission, how Shepherd reacts in the aftermath of Arrival), it's mostly subordinated to contextual tonal replies. This is most notable when talking to Cerberus and TIM, where Paragon and Renegade Shepherd can't decide what tone they wish to keep, and in missions like the Geth, but thematically the break from ME1 is most notable in how Shepherd approaches justice. In ME1, Shepherd was consistently about public accountability, avoiding abuses of passion, and basically not committing cover ups, while advising others (Garrus primarily) to play by the rules rather than being driven by passion. Come ME2, and Tali's Loyalty Mission in particular where the Paragon options are both coverups for the emotional passion of a friend...


ME3 tempered the switch by adopting more ideological moralities on various arcs, but it lacked consistency on what Paragon or Renegade actually stood for (or how they stood apart in most cases).

[Xilizhra]

ME2 is where the system broke down, a reflection of the shift from an ideological morality system to a tone-based morality system. While it comes back from time to time (how to resolve Jacob's loyalty mission, how Shepherd reacts in the aftermath of Arrival), it's mostly subordinated to contextual tonal replies. This is most notable when talking to Cerberus and TIM, where Paragon and Renegade Shepherd can't decide what tone they wish to keep, and in missions like the Geth, but thematically the break from ME1 is most notable in how Shepherd approaches justice. In ME1, Shepherd was consistently about public accountability, avoiding abuses of passion, and basically not committing cover ups, while advising others (Garrus primarily) to play by the rules rather than being driven by passion. Come ME2, and Tali's Loyalty Mission in particular where the Paragon options are both coverups for the emotional passion of a friend...

Given that Shepard is Tali's legal counsel, isn't she really not supposed to plead in a manner that the defendant doesn't want her to plead? Tali isn't committing a crime by not divulging said information, only remaining silent. And the other Paragon option is an accurate attack on the corruption of the current court.

Also, does Paragon's tone shift continually on Cerberus, in truth?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 août 2013 - 04:08 .

[Jorji Costava]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Paragon Shepherd spends a lot of time lecturing others on following the rules, toleration of disagreeable viewpoints, and other high principles regardless of the benefits of breaking them... and then breaking the rules, enforcing their personal views regardless of what others might want, and generally sacrificing teleological ethics for pragmaticism when the cost moves from abstract/future to immediate.

Just going to be annoying here, but this last sentence is a bit confusing, since paragon Shepard by and large endorses neither teleological ethics nor the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce. I assume you mean here that Paragon Shepard sacrifices deontological ethics for the sake of short-term expediency, in which case, I mostly agree.

Most of the problems actually come from actions you're more or less railroaded into, such as working with Cerberus to begin with; in their zeal to give the game a Dirty Dozen-like vibe, the writers seemed to forego ideological consistency. Jack's loyalty mission also sticks out here. Knowingly releasing a large number of dangerous criminals in order to recruit a sociopath of questionable utility to the overall mission seems decidedly unlike paragon behavior.

EDIT: Fixed formatting

Modifié par osbornep, 18 août 2013 - 04:19 .

[KaiserShep]

There's also the email you get from one of the criminals that manages to escape. And here I was hoping the whole ship would simply suffer catastrophic system failure and kill everyone else inside.

[Jorji Costava]

I actually forgot about those details. Looking back, I would have preferred an option to not recruit Jack over the option to not open Grunt's tank or not activate Legion. I don't dislike Jack or anything, but by what story logic do you make Jack's content mandatory while Legion's is optional?

[Sir DeLoria]

Rewriting is unethical, like Samara points out. I also get the chance to kill a lot of Geth, like Tali points out. Those were some of the few renegade points I earned in ME2.

[Bionuts]

Paragon Shepard lets murderers, terrorists, and psychopaths run loose for the stupid feeling of being "righteous".

Oh, Batman. How many people have died because you didn't have the bionuts to get the job done?

[Yanpo]

KaiserShep wrote...

Total extinction of your species as well as all the others you knew makes it the worst. I would say it's an immensely daft decision.

The Geth are also a species, and choosing 'destroy' kills them (if you did not already kill them).  I do not place one species above another, not even my own, and so I did not play favorites.  That is why I chose to cure the Genophage and save the Rachni queen.  Both the Krogan and Rachni are highly potential threats to the rest of the galaxy, including non-sentient life.  I chose to give them a chance anyways.  The Geth also presented a large threat if they ever went power mad, yet I decided that they deserved a chance.  If synthetics were to become the dominant beings, then so be it.  I would fight them to the death if it ever came to it, but until then, they would be given a chance.

To me, It was either all of us, or none of us.  If our cycle couldn't defeat the Reapers together, then so be it.  The next cycle will have to do it (and they did).  I'm just one human. I do not decide for my entire galaxy, and so I will not force synthesis, and I will not force genocide.  I wasn't sent to kill the Geth, nor synthesize the galaxy.  I wast sent to destroy the Reapers, and only the Reapers by using the Crucible.  That plan failed.  If there was one group that did not deserve it, it was the Geth, whom, aside from the damaged group, were never hostile or dangerous, exept when acting in self defense.    

Our mission failed. Unless you chose control and then imagined Shephard doing what he/she would most likely actually do: Help rebuild; dismantle Reapers; re-upload to old (preserved/fixed) body.  True AIs are no different from real Intelligence.  There is no danger of some "directive" or "program" corrupting Shepherd.  If there was, then it wasn't an upload.  It was just an attempted copy and paste of her conciousness that was simulated using exhaustive input/output programming to made it appear as if it was Shepherd.  In which case, her body's demise would not have happened.  If uploaded Shepherd was corruptible that means you played her that way, and so control would still be your "best" choice.