123 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

The 10,00 is only known after the fact. The first time I heard the numbers, I couldn't believe the blatant goalpost moving.

[von uber]

The 10,00 is only known after the fact. The first time I heard the numbers, I couldn't believe the blatant goalpost moving.

 

I am sure it is mentioned earlier in ME1 when it goes past the window on the Market floor.

[Bob from Accounting]

The 10,00 is only known after the fact. The first time I heard the numbers, I couldn't believe the blatant goalpost moving.

Wow. I've heard ridiculous arguments before, but revealing the crew size of a ship is 'goalpost moving'?

[fhs33721]

And that is one of the main reasons that the next game should not have Renegade and Paragon.  They're relics of ages that should have never existed.  I don't need an arbitrarily written system to tell me if I'm the good guy or the bad guy.

 

It's like the Genophage cure, I cured the Krogan as a Renegade because I considered Wrex a friend and because the Krogan look cool.  It sure as hell wasn't Paragon.

 

The worst though is saving the council in Masss Effect 1, I didn't sacrifice them because I'm anti-alien and want human superiority, I focused on Sovereign because he was a threat that had to be ended and if I shouldn't throw ships away at Geth because the council fleet couldn't handle them.

 

I agree, that the paragon/renegade system  or something similar isn't really necessary but:

 

 

I don't know why you imagine that removing the Paragon and Renegade system will mean the story no longer 'tells' you if you're the good guy or bad guy. I can pretty much assure you such 'messages' will still be in place and be as strong as ever, morality system or no.

 

I actually agree with this to an extend. In Dragon Age, where no morality system was implemented some of the major plot choices (like killing Connor, Convincing the Werewolves to kill the dalish, Burning Amaranthine ore siding with Petriece) still basically came off as: "Muhahahahaha look at my evilness. Dark side +15. Oh wait we don't have that in this game."

But I do thik that there were a lot of choices that were more grey than any of the Mass effect ones. Like deciding what to do with the bewitched Templar wether to spare Loghain or not or doing the dark Ritual or not. These had variable outcomes where none was showcased as a blatantly evil. So I think its a improvement over the Paragon/Renegade system.

[Scott Sion]

I try not to to pay attention to P and R when I'm doing my cannon character. I just go with what I think is right and ultimately I end up with like 4-5 Paragon bars and 2-3 renegade bars (Estimates as I haven't played in a while and don't have the exact info in front of me). In the end though I can make my choices without the games morality system branding me a complete ass hole... Just sort of douche bag when I feel like it.

 

So basiclly I wouldn't worry, you can follow your own path while still having NPC's react to you as a paragon character overall.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Wow. I've heard ridiculous arguments before, but revealing the crew size of a ship is 'goalpost moving'?

 

Well, you'd be the expert for ridiculous arguments and moving the goalposts since its your fundamental level of communication on posting, but I'd say that jtav means that they're abusing a loophole in their lore to make it seem like your decision at the time was really worth more than just the Council, and to try to justify saving the Council over keeping the alliance fleet focused on Sovereign.

 

That's just nonsense. No story ever has or ever will 'force' its opinions on anyone. It says more about you than it does about a story if you see yourself as 'forced' to believe something because a story says so.

 

You have a very limited exposure to stories then. No surprise there.

 

I don't know why you imagine that removing the Paragon and Renegade system will mean the story no longer 'tells' you if you're the good guy or bad guy. I can pretty much assure you such 'messages' will still be in place and be as strong as ever, morality system or no.

 

Not at all. David, for the hundredth time: Go Play Dragon Age Origins. 

 

Or do I need to pull out a Socratic Argument to tell you why its impossible to define anything as good or bad? Not everyone defines good and bad in the limited dichotomy as you do.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Choosing Destroy. Painted as rouge and renegade, but clearly it's the "right" thing too do.

 

Letting Aria mind rape Derpy dude from Omega (name to long and Russian to write), guy totally deserved it, I find it a good thing too do in terms of both a moralistic and justice perspectvie.

 

If those are "paragon" to you, I do not want to see your idea of renegade.

[Sir DeLoria]

That's just nonsense. No story ever has or ever will 'force' its opinions on anyone. It says more about you than it does about a story if you see yourself as 'forced' to believe something because a story says so.

Congrats David, you finally found that quote button.

This is perhaps one of the dumbest, most ignorant statements I have ever read. Persuasive writing(when an author tries to make the reader/audience agree with their views) apparently doesn't exist in your world. Here, read this maybe you'll get it:

http://curriculum.au..._of_Writing.pdf
http://en.wikipedia....suasive_writing

[kalasaurus]

I try not to to pay attention to P and R when I'm doing my cannon character. I just go with what I think is right and ultimately I end up with like 4-5 Paragon bars and 2-3 renegade bars (Estimates as I haven't played in a while and don't have the exact info in front of me). In the end though I can make my choices without the games morality system branding me a complete ass hole... Just sort of douche bag when I feel like it.

 

So basiclly I wouldn't worry, you can follow your own path while still having NPC's react to you as a paragon character overall.

 

Agreed.  I generally follow the "Paragade" path when playing Mass Effect, and just because a choice is branded as "Renegade" it doesn't automatically equal "evil" or "wrong".  I also agree with those who said that ME3 greatly improved the Paragon/Renegade morality system with Reputation Points. 

[Scott Sion]

If those are "paragon" to you, I do not want to see your idea of renegade.

I'm sorry, but choosing destroy is 100% defendable as paragon. The only real con of destroy is the "death" of the geth, however they're machines and machines can be rebuilt.

[von uber]

This whole paragon / renegade is daft anyway. It's perfectly possible (and is how I play) to be 75/25 renegade / paragon and yet have every major character and race alive (that it is possible to have) before you hit the big red button.

[Sir DeLoria]

All the major choices can be broken down to some sort of philosophical question. And in each one of them the writers force their opinions and ideologies (which mostly seem to be in sync with modern western morality) on the audience with the Renegade/Paragon system. Why do you cherry pick that particular story arc. It is no worse than all the others in this regard.
 
Also while I agree that the Geth were changed to be more sympathetic in ME3, the paragon dialouge has always been in favor of the Geth even back in ME1. So it's not like the writers came up with that only in ME3. So I'm not sure if it was really presented as a grey zone in earlier games as you suggest.

It's not only about the dialogue, but the entire presentation of the arc. The arc only shows the victimized Geth, whereas the Quarian standpoint is completely ignored and we only get caricature-esque, ridiculous and over the top figures(Gerrel, Xen) to represent them. The same also goes for the Tuchanka arc, where the Salarian Dalatrass is just hilariously over the top and unsympathetic.

While the Paragon dialogue did hint at a slight support for the Geth(or rather partial blame on the Quarians) it never went as far as to simply ask: "Are AIs living beings? If you say yes, you're a real hero, Paragon! If you say no, you're an evil racist, boo Renegade!"

That BS is new to ME3 and utterly stupid. Turning previously clearly grey zoned conflicts into morality tests from one game to the next is not a sign of comsistent, good writing.

[DeinonSlayer]

The Petrovsky choice is absolutely in line with P/R. You're showing mercy and telling Aria she can't sadistically mind rape and murder a prisoner. Come on now.

 

Honestly, I think Shepard lets the choking go on too long as-is, even in the outcome where you intervene. And this is coming from a guy who busts a cap in Balak before turning his ass over to the Alliance... because f*** Balak...

[jtav]

Yeah, I'd have preferred to stop the choking immediately. And while I'm at it, to have the option for slightly more sympathetic dialogue toward both Petrovsky and Archer since my Shepards are usually aware that the only real difference between us is that Shepard's atrocities paid off. Shepard's sneering doesn't work when he's the reason Overlord continued and can see Petrovsky's occupation of Omega and raise him a genophage sabotage and Arrival.

[DeinonSlayer]

Yeah, I'd have preferred to stop the choking immediately. And while I'm at it, to have the option for slightly more sympathetic dialogue toward both Petrovsky and Archer since my Shepards are usually aware that the only real difference between us is that Shepard's atrocities paid off. Shepard's sneering doesn't work when he's the reason Overlord continued and can see Petrovsky's occupation of Omega and raise him a genophage sabotage and Arrival.

 

It is a bit lulzy to see a Shepard who arranged the deaths of seventeen million people and spat on their graves afterwards blubbering about Thessia a week later (seriously - one of the dialogue options speaking to Joker after opting to kill the Quarians is labeled "they were stupid").

 

Shepard: "In case you haven't noticed, Joker, we just lost a few million people. This isn't the time!"

Joker: "Uh... really, Commander? You want to go there?"

[jtav]

It is a bit lulzy to see a Shepard who arranged the deaths of seventeen million people and spat on their graves afterwards blubbering about Thessia a week later (seriously - one of the dialogue options speaking to Joker after opting to kill the Quarians is labeled "they were stupid").

 

Shepard: "In case you haven't noticed, Joker, we just lost a few million people. This isn't the time!"

Joker: "Uh... really, Commander? You want to go there?"

It's something I really hate about ME and ME3 in particular. The writers have foreordained who will be sympathized with and to what degree. Dissension will not be tolerated. I happen to like Cerberus and really dislike asari. Neither option got much RP opportunity. And don't tell me it's because Cerberus was the bad guys. I feel like DA respected my fondness for Meredith in a way ME didn't for Petrovsky or TIM.

[DeinonSlayer]

It's something I really hate about ME and ME3 in particular. The writers have foreordained who will be sympathized with and to what degree. Dissension will not be tolerated. I happen to like Cerberus and really dislike asari. Neither option got much RP opportunity. And don't tell me it's because Cerberus was the bad guys. I feel like DA respected my fondness for Meredith in a way ME didn't for Petrovsky or TIM.

 

At least in ME3 we have some leeway to express differing opinions. In ME1 (for example) we had no choice but to either thumb our nose at the Quarians' situation or make excuses for the Geth when discussing their history with Tali. Just because the writers can deny the player character the ability to voice a position doesn't mean the human being steering them is going to fall in line with it.

 

I've seen people argue the perspective that synthetics aren't alive - a position I disagree with, but I can appreciate the inclusion of dialogue to let people adhere to that position. Personally, I'd have liked to call them out more for the things they've done (*cough* OK, maybe not quite like that ). Things like the Geth's extermination of 99% of the Quarian species in the Morning War shouldn't have been relegated to expanded universe material (ME: Revelations) and an obscure elevator conversation in ME1 - there should have been dialogue addressing it, especially in the penultimate chapter. The writers stated that they see the galaxy's treatment of synthetics as "pure racism" on the part of organics, but I say being a victim of discrimination doesn't give one a blank check on their actions - if they didn't want us judging the Geth for having done these things, they either should have directly confronted it or never established it as having happened in the first place. Don't bury it under a half-hour slideshow of Self Sacrificing Geth Throughout History which we're never allowed to question and the veracity of which nobody challenges (even characters who have every reason to).

 

To a lesser extent, the same thing goes to the Krogan. Wrex's insistence on the cure going to the entire species all at once undermines his own power base. We can't really challenge him on whether this is the right thing to do - even if it wasn't possible to change his mind and the mission went forward as-is, it'd have been nice to at least have the back-and-forth. Hear his reasoning so we could judge it for ourselves - if he sees his back as being against the wall, let's hear why. It'd have been nice to call Gerrel and have a similar conversation in regards to why they invaded and what their alternatives were, and maybe do the same with Legion over whether they should be using the Reaper code at all.

 

Long story short, ME3 lost a lot of nuance. When it falls on Renegade Shepard to articulate a faction's argument for them, something has gone very wrong.

[Steelcan]

I'm kind of confused by the OP since neither renegade or paragon have a strict outline that they subscribe to.

 

 

Lets look at the Genophage data vs the CB decision

 

Its essentially the exact smae decision, the only difference is scale.  yet one is paragon and the other is renegade

[Bob from Accounting]

Congrats David, you finally found that quote button.

This is perhaps one of the dumbest, most ignorant statements I have ever read. Persuasive writing(when an author tries to make the reader/audience agree with their views) apparently doesn't exist in your world. Here, read this maybe you'll get it:

http://curriculum.au..._of_Writing.pdf
http://en.wikipedia....suasive_writing

 

Wow. So I guess for you then, upon reading such writing, you're 'forced' to agree with the author? Brainwashed? Indoctrinated? A cage of rats placed upon your head? Perhaps the book grows an arm and places a weapon to your head? Is that how you're 'forced' to agree?

 

For the record, 'persuasive' writing is hardly the only writing in which the author states or attempts to state a truth. Nearly all fiction does.

[Steelcan]

Wow. So I guess for you then, upon reading such writing, you're 'forced' to agree with the author? Brainwashed? Indoctrinated? A cage of rats placed upon your head?

 

I imagine it would be very unfortunate to be so very...fragile.

 

Confronting someone with their most deep seated phobia and the threat of an imminent demise makes someone fragile?

[Xilizhra]

It's not only about the dialogue, but the entire presentation of the arc. The arc only shows the victimized Geth, whereas the Quarian standpoint is completely ignored and we only get caricature-esque, ridiculous and over the top figures(Gerrel, Xen) to represent them. The same also goes for the Tuchanka arc, where the Salarian Dalatrass is just hilariously over the top and unsympathetic.

While the Paragon dialogue did hint at a slight support for the Geth(or rather partial blame on the Quarians) it never went as far as to simply ask: "Are AIs living beings? If you say yes, you're a real hero, Paragon! If you say no, you're an evil racist, boo Renegade!"

That BS is new to ME3 and utterly stupid. Turning previously clearly grey zoned conflicts into morality tests from one game to the next is not a sign of comsistent, good writing.

Um... Tali, Raan, and Koris were all there too, with varying degrees of sympathy attached to them. Xen was always crazy and Gerrel was always a warhound, so that's hardly different from ME2. And we get to see some of the victimized quarians as well (albeit some of them victimized by their own government for trying to stop the massacre of the geth, but that hardly paints all quarians in a bad light), including the flight from Rannoch.

[Steelcan]

Gerrel in ME2 was a warhound looking out for his people, in 3 he's a blind fanatic

 

We never see any mention of the billions of quarians exterminated by the geth

 

We never see the geth shooting down emissaries as described in the novels

[Xilizhra]

Gerrel in ME2 was a warhound looking out for his people, in 3 he's a blind fanatic

 

We never see any mention of the billions of quarians exterminated by the geth

 

We never see the geth shooting down emissaries as described in the novels

The difference in solely in what situation Gerrel is in; he's at peace in 2 and at war in 3. I'm fairly sure those quarians are mentioned if you ask about the backstory to the conflict (which, naturally, hardly any continuing player would because they know it already), and I think the writers just forgot about any mention of killing diplomats (so it might not strictly be canon anymore).

[Steelcan]

The difference in solely in what situation Gerrel is in; he's at peace in 2 and at war in 3. I'm fairly sure those quarians are mentioned if you ask about the backstory to the conflict (which, naturally, hardly any continuing player would because they know it already), and I think the writers just forgot about any mention of killing diplomats (so it might not strictly be canon anymore).

 

There is no mention of them, I've played it enough times and with enough different Shepards that if there was any combination of factors that would lead to the discussion I'd have seen it, or on an LP, it isn't there.

[Xilizhra]

There is no mention of them, I've played it enough times and with enough different Shepards that if there was any combination of factors that would lead to the discussion I'd have seen it, or on an LP, it isn't there.

Then read the codex.