1324 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Lizardviking wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

Really? I'd argue that ME3 was the closest to getting the original idea of renegade right.

I would too, in fact. Looing back at ME1-ME2 vids on youtube of Renegade moments, it's really like they treated that whole path as a joke rather than offering the player a legitimate alternative to the Paragon path -- just trolling for sh*ts 'n gigglez.

[Seboist]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is in ME3 "Paragon" and "Renegade" changed from "idealist" and "badass" to "angsty" and "psycho".

Really? I'd argue that ME3 was the closest to getting the original idea of renegade right.

I would too, in fact. Looing back at ME1-ME2 vids on youtube of Renegade moments, it's really like they treated that whole path as a joke rather than offering the player a legitimate alternative to the Paragon path -- just trolling for sh*ts 'n gigglez.

Renegade on it's own was portrayed decently in 3 but suffered from nonsense like the obviously "good" choice with the genophage arc being to cure it if Wrex/Eve are around(whom are the krogan messiahs apparently).

1 and especially 2 did portray Renegade as a troll/joke path with all the one liners and things of that nature.

[KaiserShep]

I can't recall any particularly meaningful renegade options in 2. All I can remember are the hilarious lines.

[anmiro]

 Nothing, the characters were the strongest part of the series.

[Steelcan]

KaiserShep wrote...

I can't recall any particularly meaningful renegade options in 2. All I can remember are the hilarious lines.

Destroying the Genophage Data and Heretics spring to mind

Modifié par Steelcan, 07 novembre 2013 - 10:37 .

[Kataphrut94]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Good lord, I posted here a day ago and the thread has nearly doubled in size! I fear you people may have completely buried my Aigis-skin EDI and camp Cortez ideas.

This may be purely a gameplay thing, but I would have changed Jacob's primary weapon to be assault rifles instead of shotguns. As it stands, he's really just a slightly sturdier but generally less useful version of Jack. The AR would give him a bit of much needed versatility.

I for one am glad they didn't go the camp route with Cortez. If they're going to include token LGBT characters, the least they can do is not make them stereotypical.

The point I initially made about Cortez was that I like him and I like his romance path, but there are signs that it felt like they were playing a bit cautiously with him. For example, if you want to romance him, you have to go through about five different 'are you sure' dialogue wheels during his Citadel date.

It's like: 'Am I attractive? -> I'm attracted to men -> I'm attracted to you -> Shall we start a relationship? -> Kiss him you fool.'

Compare that to the same-sex relationships with Liara and Sam where it's more like: 'Shall we shag -> Alright let's shag' and you get a pretty good idea of the kind of audience they have to appeal to.

If they'd made him just a little bit more openly, dare I say, stereotypically gay, it would have perhaps been a bolder move provided they didn't sacrifice any of the good stuff about him and his relationship. I know plenty of gay men who would not be offended if a gay character was portrayed as slightly, realistically camp, since many of them are slightly camp themselves. The only people you'd be offending would be the hypocritical emotionally insecure teenage boy (or adult intellectual equivalent) demographic, which is exactly the sort of demogprahic that gaming needs to try and move away from.

[Made Nightwing]

KaiserShep wrote...

I can't recall any particularly meaningful renegade options in 2. All I can remember are the hilarious lines.

I wouldn't go that far. There were alternatives based on your personal philosophy. For instance, I'd say ME2 offered guys like MassivelyEffective the opportunity to pursue a humans-on-top-shadow-empire goal for its own sake alone, rather than because the Reapers were currently burning everything. Genophage Data and Heretics clearly have long term impacts on the galaxy, but don't necessarily have an immediate impact. Therefore your choice could be a long term Renegade decision to ensure humanity (or just Shepard) has the upper hand in future galactic struggles.

In ME3, my Shepards (even the Paragon ones) would make Renegade decisions depending on the circumstances. Not because they were trying to advance to a humans on top liberal collective, but because they were genuinely terrified for the future of all organic life, and made high-risk, high-reward decisions on the spur of the moment. My main female Paragon-Shepard shoots Mordin in the back because she believes that getting the salarian fleets onside provides a drastic advantage over the reapers (stealth dreadnaughts are a plus).

So for ME3, choosing the Renegade option can be another demonstration of a more ruthless streak, or it can be a more idealistic person acknowledging that the alternative is far more horrible than the action they are taking.

It's one of the better aspects of ME3, really.

[KaiserShep]

Fair point. I forgot about Maelon's data and the heretics, but for the most part, renegade Shepard in ME2 was more psychotic than ruthlessly pragmatic. But anyway, I agree that ME3's renegade path was better handled, even though I tend to still lean a bit more on the paragon side.

[Clayless]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

The point I initially made about Cortez was that I like him and I like his romance path, but there are signs that it felt like they were playing a bit cautiously with him. For example, if you want to romance him, you have to go through about five different 'are you sure' dialogue wheels during his Citadel date.

It's like: 'Am I attractive? -> I'm attracted to men -> I'm attracted to you -> Shall we start a relationship? -> Kiss him you fool.'

Compare that to the same-sex relationships with Liara and Sam where it's more like: 'Shall we shag -> Alright let's shag' and you get a pretty good idea of the kind of audience they have to appeal to.

If they'd made him just a little bit more openly, dare I say, stereotypically gay, it would have perhaps been a bolder move provided they didn't sacrifice any of the good stuff about him and his relationship. I know plenty of gay men who would not be offended if a gay character was portrayed as slightly, realistically camp, since many of them are slightly camp themselves. The only people you'd be offending would be the hypocritical emotionally insecure teenage boy (or adult intellectual equivalent) demographic, which is exactly the sort of demogprahic that gaming needs to try and move away from.

I know plenty who would be offended.

Playing up to stereotypes is very rarely a good thing.

[Made Nightwing]

KaiserShep wrote...

Fair point. I forgot about Maelon's data and the heretics, but for the most part, renegade Shepard in ME2 was more psychotic than ruthlessly pragmatic. But anyway, I agree that ME3's renegade path was better handled, even though I tend to still lean a bit more on the paragon side.

I've always tried to ignore the paragon/renegade system, and just go with what seemed the smart decision, leaning towards being less willing to randomly kill and maim along the way. My canon!Shep is content to let people find their own way in the galaxy, and to that end he supports a more equitable distribution of power amongst species (so for instance, after the war he'd use what political cred he'd gained to advocate for an all inclusive Council, not just a triumvirate plus one). He considers that all people and perspectives have something to offer the world, no matter their species, religion or political viewpoint (and thus would never choose Synthesis, as it destroys diversity, and without diversity life is stagnation). He even considers organisations like Cerberus are necessary to a degree, as are the Spectres, the STG and the Black Ops of other species.

But survival is necessary before all of that can happen, and that's why I consider the Renegade path in ME3 to offer so much promise, because some of the worst decisions make complete practical sense depending on who and what you want to save. If you're a Shepard that considers the well-being of all species a priority, then you'd make saving the krogan through ending the genophage your goal. If you're looking more at the overall strategic picture, trying to make life easier for Hackett and Victus, you'd definitely want the salarians on side.

As I said, there are few things in ME3 that I'm truly satisfied with, but the option to play a moral Shepard who is forced to make nominally immoral choices is one that hits the spot.

[P. Domi]

Made, when you made your point about how some decisions are given a renegade or paragon score merely on whether they are on the top right or lower right and not about the morality behind it, I thought about one of the decisions I pondered the most in ME2, which was the reprogramming or "deletion" of the heretic geth. I changed my opinion at least twice...

Regardless of whom you bring along with Legion, there are three stopovers where you analyse your choices, Legion informs you of the opinions from the Consensus (slighty in favor of reprogramaming), etc. It's great writing by L'Étoile (as usual) and the game is telling you there is not a perfect choice without risks, both of them can backfire. Legion even insists you shouldn't look at them with an antropomorphic perspective, because they're different. 

Then, it all boils down to either inserting a virus and making the heretics join those who refuse to accept the gifts from Nazara (Sovereign) or delete them completely (which may balance the geth power with other factions if they ever get aggressive again). It's a bargain, in the long term the stronger, more numerous geth can be a powerful ally. On the other hand, by introducing the heretics "points of view" (it's the wrong term, I know) the geth may opt someday, in the future, to directly oppose your interests, backed by overwhelming numbers.

If you destroy them, even if it is because you don't want to risk a budding alliance with Legion's geth faction by including their 'evil' brethren, and because you've all species' interest in mind, you get renegade points. It's one of those instances where you say, neither decision presented is really "red" or "blue". Even if I played mostly Paragon, I destroyed them, as a precaution, not for the sake of destroying.

Then, you segway to ME 3, Legion comes aboard after the Geth Dreadnought mission. One of the very few instances in the trilogy where an NPC acknowledges a "red" decision was good, occurs when he admits the destruction of the heretics in ME2 will be helpful and make things easier in the missions ahead, it even makes the peace easier to achieve in the final stand-off on Rannoch. If you reprogrammed them, Legion would admit that the re-admitted heretics tipped the balance towards going back with the Reapers.

It'd be great to see more complex decision-making like this in future installments.

And congrats for your "Siege of Shanxi" story.

Modifié par pablodomi, 08 novembre 2013 - 05:02 .

[Xilizhra]

Then, you segway to ME 3, Legion comes aboard after the Geth Dreadnought mission. One of the very few instances in the trilogy where an NPC acknowledges a "red" decision was good, occurs when he admits the destruction of the heretics in ME2 will be helpful and make things easier in the missions ahead, it even makes the peace easier to achieve in the final stand-off.

It's interesting, yes. Of course, it's also good that you can rewrite them and make peace anyway.

[Darks1d3]

Xilizhra wrote...

Then, you segway to ME 3, Legion comes aboard after the Geth Dreadnought mission. One of the very few instances in the trilogy where an NPC acknowledges a "red" decision was good, occurs when he admits the destruction of the heretics in ME2 will be helpful and make things easier in the missions ahead, it even makes the peace easier to achieve in the final stand-off.

It's interesting, yes. Of course, it's also good that you can rewrite them and make peace anyway.

True, but more quarians lose their lives in the process during the Rannoch mission(though the war assets doesn't get affected one way or another). It was one of those "renegade" decisions in ME2 that I didn't think was really all that renegade. Sure, at the time I didn't even know about the Rannoch mission in ME3, but it still didn't feel right to rewrite them.

[Xilizhra]

Darks1d3 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Then, you segway to ME 3, Legion comes aboard after the Geth Dreadnought mission. One of the very few instances in the trilogy where an NPC acknowledges a "red" decision was good, occurs when he admits the destruction of the heretics in ME2 will be helpful and make things easier in the missions ahead, it even makes the peace easier to achieve in the final stand-off.

It's interesting, yes. Of course, it's also good that you can rewrite them and make peace anyway.

True, but more quarians lose their lives in the process during the Rannoch mission(though the war assets doesn't get affected one way or another). It was one of those "renegade" decisions in ME2 that I didn't think was really all that renegade. Sure, at the time I didn't even know about the Rannoch mission in ME3, but it still didn't feel right to rewrite them.

More quarians die, fewer geth do. So it's a bit of a tossup, although given that the quarians are the aggressors in this instance, I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to the geth.

[P. Domi]

That was the great thing, we made the decision thinking of the possibilities and long term repercussions, which was very good writing. Then, you had other forms to compensate for a decision that may or may have not backfired (it was just one of the several factors that could help or hinder the brokering of a peace). It really gave you the chance to forget about the blue/red, light side/dark side and focus on the story. That's a good quality in an RPG.

Modifié par pablodomi, 08 novembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Steelcan]

StreetMagic wrote...

I thought the Collector base had the same potential. Thinking about the implications was fun.. speculating Cerberus' role (and Shepard's standing) in the sequel fun.. sad how it turned out. ME3 Legion didn't live up to Stormwaltz' writing in ME2, but it was handled a lot better than the CB for sure.

The CB decision

I wanted my human dominated galaxy

[Seboist]

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I thought the Collector base had the same potential. Thinking about the implications was fun.. speculating Cerberus' role (and Shepard's standing) in the sequel fun.. sad how it turned out. ME3 Legion didn't live up to Stormwaltz' writing in ME2, but it was handled a lot better than the CB for sure.

The CB decision

I wanted my human dominated galaxy

You get one at the end of ME1. Just ignore the crappy sequels and you're all set.

[KaiserShep]

Robosexual wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

The point I initially made about Cortez was that I like him and I like his romance path, but there are signs that it felt like they were playing a bit cautiously with him. For example, if you want to romance him, you have to go through about five different 'are you sure' dialogue wheels during his Citadel date.

It's like: 'Am I attractive? -> I'm attracted to men -> I'm attracted to you -> Shall we start a relationship? -> Kiss him you fool.'

Compare that to the same-sex relationships with Liara and Sam where it's more like: 'Shall we shag -> Alright let's shag' and you get a pretty good idea of the kind of audience they have to appeal to.

If they'd made him just a little bit more openly, dare I say, stereotypically gay, it would have perhaps been a bolder move provided they didn't sacrifice any of the good stuff about him and his relationship. I know plenty of gay men who would not be offended if a gay character was portrayed as slightly, realistically camp, since many of them are slightly camp themselves. The only people you'd be offending would be the hypocritical emotionally insecure teenage boy (or adult intellectual equivalent) demographic, which is exactly the sort of demogprahic that gaming needs to try and move away from.

I know plenty who would be offended.

Playing up to stereotypes is very rarely a good thing.

I think this really depends on the tone of the story as well. I don't think a Ray Gilette or Shore Leave character would really suit Mass Effect's cast of characters aboard a ship in a serious war tale. 

[Made Nightwing]

@pablodomi-Exactly. It's part of a tragically unexploited option to make choices much more meaningful than 'blue equals good outcome' and 'red equals nasty outcome'. Rather than trying to cast choices in a moral light, some games cast them just as they are, choices.

For instance, there's the example you mentioned, where an NPC admitted that the red choice may have been the best one. Then there's the Kelly Chambers trap, where the 'paragon' option is to wish her well, and the 'renegade' option is to get her to change her appearance and identity. Now, when my nominally paragon Shep came across that decision, he immediately told her to change her identity. Not because he was a Renegade, but because he was a switched on special operations officer with an eye toward operational and personal security, and there is no way he wouldn't give a friend in need some tips to survive.

It's something I hope to see more of in future Mass Effect games. A little imagination in the outcomes of minor and major choices.

[Made Nightwing]

@KaiserShep-Blasphemy. Ray would take out the Reapers with style, class and his awesome moustache. In fact, he should have replaced Cortez entirely.

[KaiserShep]

Hey don't get me wrong. I think Ray Gilette is awesome. Same goes for Shore Leave. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 08 novembre 2013 - 04:28 .

[Made Nightwing]

Damn right.