Because being punished for wanting to be a hero sucks? Because in the real world, being good and doing the right thing is a mixed bag, where sometimes you are actually rewarded, and only sometimes do you have to sacrifice? Because resisting temptation doesn't need to be a theme rammed down our throats 24/7?
Take your pick.
The true measure of whether you're good or just looking for buttpats is if you continue to be good and do the right thing even when its less convenient.
I don't know. The Save Import feature isn't all THAT bad.
You've returned possessed by a devil. The real Fast Jimmy would never describe the save import in a marginally positive light!
The true measure of whether you're good or just looking for buttpats is if you continue to be good and do the right thing even when its less convenient.
Maybe. Mostly that is a concept that's only really true in morality plays, not the real world.
But this isn't a morality play. It's a video game. That's supposed to be fun.
I though The Old Republic's empire side have well written evil/dark side paths. ESPECIALLY both Sith class......Dear God does it feel so...so...Magnificent Bastard-y
But they don't have good light side paths. Being light sided would require overthrowing the Sith because the Sith are very clearly evil and continuing to associate with them and allowing them to continue means you are knowingly enabling more suffering to occur.
You've returned possessed by a devil. The real Fast Jimmy would never describe the save import in a marginally positive light!
Guest_StreetMagic_*
But they don't have good light side paths. Being light sided would require overthrowing the Sith because the Sith are very clearly evil and continuing to associate with them and allowing them to continue means you are knowingly enabling more suffering to occur.
I think that's supposed to only be fulfilled by the "chosen one" (Anakin). The prophecy was that only the chosen one would destroy the Sith (according to Lucas, he did.. by killing himself and Palpatine).
edit: Ugh. Forum editor sucks. Can't get Fast Jimmy's nested quoted off there.
The true measure of whether you're good or just looking for buttpats is if you continue to be good and do the right thing even when its less convenient.
The problem is that its RARELY ever not convenient. Being Paragon/Good/Help-all-the-defenseless-peasants-you-can/what-have-you is predominantly the best course of action in nearly every video game, let alone RPGs. A totally selfish player looking to maximize their rewards and outcomes only needs to make the "good" choice every time.
Maybe. Mostly that is a concept that's only really true in morality plays, not the real world.
But this isn't a morality play. It's a video game. That's supposed to be fun.
You assume playing someone with different morals than you isn't fun. That's not the case... at least not for everyone.
Many people feel that playing a goody-two-shoes who always saves the day and experiences zero consequence for it is extremely boring and not fun.
I think that's supposed to only be fulfilled by the "chosen one" (Anakin). The prophecy was that only the chosen one would destroy the Sith (according to Lucas, he did.. by killing himself and Palpatine).
edit: Ugh. Forum editor sucks. Can't get Fast Jimmy's nested quoted off there.
Mwuhahhahaaa! I am insidiously tenacious like that.
You assume playing someone with different morals than you isn't fun. That's not the case... at least not for everyone.
Many people feel that playing a goody-two-shoes who always saves the day and experiences zero consequence for it is extremely boring and not fun.
Some consquences for being the hero are fine. Equating Hero with Martyr is just grimdark for grimdark's sake. You shouldn't have to "prove" you're the good guy by taking it in the shorts all the time. It's a pretendy-fun-time video game.
So at least incentivize people to roleplay by making the rewards for evil/good balanced, i don't like how when i roleplay a renegade shepard i can hardly rationalize some of the renegade choices because the outcome is worse almost every time. when it's like this, they're literally making the hardass characters for that however small percentage of people that like to and enjoy roleplaying those kinds of personalities, and nobody else because nobody else has a reason to even try.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
So at least incentivize people to roleplay by making the rewards for evil/good balanced, i don't like how when i roleplay a renegade shepard i can hardly rationalize some of the renegade choices because the outcome is worse almost every time. when it's like this, they're literally making the hardass characters for that however small percentage of people that like to and enjoy roleplaying those kinds of personalities, and nobody else because nobody else has a reason to even try.
Renegade is it's own reward.
Half serious btw. Although I do think Renegade is cooler and funnier. It's fun to play. I can't stomach some of the stuff Paragon says.
I generally like playing goody types in many games, but there's something about the military angle mixed with Paragon that turns me off. Too Boy Scoutish and square. I'd rather avoid that, even if Renegade isn't as rewarding.
You assume playing someone with different morals than you isn't fun. That's not the case... at least not for everyone.
Many people feel that playing a goody-two-shoes who always saves the day and experiences zero consequence for it is extremely boring and not fun.
Yep. I find it boring.
I've never done a complete playthrough in DAO as a renegade, but have a couple of times in DA2. The majority of my ME playthroughs are ruthless/renegade.
Renegade is it's own reward.
Half serious btw. Although I do think Renegade is cooler and funnier. It's fun to play. I can't stomach some of the stuff Paragon says.
I generally like playing goody types in many games, but there's something about the military angle mixed with Paragon that turns me off. Too Boy Scoutish and square. I'd rather avoid that, even if Renegade isn't as rewarding.
gonna have to agree with that one. i still distincly remember the progression into renegade for my first ever shepard, and it was similar to what you say, the paragon was a little TOO good for me sometimes, too nice. i like being a ruthless motherfucker, but to be perfectly honest the end choices for me mostly ended up being paragon. I didn't shoot any of my team members, didn't betray people and generally pick the best outcomes. while i would have loved if some choices ended up better in the end (like say, killing the rachni queen) , i love the role playing aspect of it enough that i played almost every playthrough of DA2 the same way, and will most likely end up doing the same in inquisition.
Some consquences for being the hero are fine. Equating Hero with Martyr is just grimdark for grimdark's sake. You shouldn't have to "prove" you're the good guy by taking it in the shorts all the time. It's a pretendy-fun-time video game.
But then how do I play a smart selfish person who doesn't play just like a good guy?
I think evil paths don't work out well because the ultimate objective of the games they're involved in is usually good. If order for an evil path to allow a player to be truly evil it would have to be a "save the world or conquer it" type of thing where you can go all in evil.
Renegade could never go all the way because your goal was still ultimately to save to galaxy, stop Saren, stop the collectors, stop the reapers.
This whole thing makes me think about the intro to Swordfish where they say things don't happen certain ways because the villain can't win, good must prevail, etc.
Sure. My problem is when mostly starts shading into never.
Renegade is it's own reward.
Half serious btw. Although I do think Renegade is cooler and funnier. It's fun to play. I can't stomach some of the stuff Paragon says.
I generally like playing goody types in many games, but there's something about the military angle mixed with Paragon that turns me off. Too Boy Scoutish and square. I'd rather avoid that, even if Renegade isn't as rewarding.
Yet the age-old ME debate is back in play here... Renegade ISN'T its own reward. Renegade is a punishment.
Or, at least, the price you pay for funny lines is that you get worse outcomes - dead companions, lost quests, less dialogue, worse choice results, etc.
What people are complaining about in this very thread shouldn't happen to players who make "good" choices is exactly what has been happening to those players who make "bad" choices, Renegade being a pretty good example. I doubt many would say their choices in real life always work out for the best, regardless of their intentions. Why should a player be able to guess with a high degree of accuracy the best choice simply based on the way the choice is framed in the scheme of morality?
I think a good example of how this can be done better is in Wasteland 2. You are given choices - go save two locations that your enemy is attacking simultaneously. Whichever one you choose irrevocably means the other is destroyed. You actually hear the people you didn't save die over the radio. There is no morality in play, it is simply a choice. A tough choice. I can make logical plot arguments about why I chose it, I can make logistical arguments (as in more XP, better rewards, different companions, etc.), I can make ethical arguments about my choice (as in defenseless civilians should be saved over those who are equipped and trained to fight)... but I don't know going into it which choice is better before even making that choice. Usually because the choices are actually fairly balanced in their outcomes AND because there is no clear cut "good guy" path.
That's a realistic choice, in my book.
What people are complaining about in this very thread shouldn't happen to players who make "good" choices is exactly what has been happening to those players who make "bad" choices, Renegade being a pretty good example. I doubt many would say their choices in real life always work out for the best, regardless of their intentions. Why should a player be able to guess with a high degree of accuracy the best choice simply based on the way the choice is framed in the scheme of morality?
Putting aside whether there were always logical consequences to paragon choices, a fair amount of renegade choices were pretty terrible and should have had poor consequences attached to them. The problem as I saw it wasn't that renegades were punished so much as Paragons were insulated. Generally speaking, Renegade choices were pretty antisocial.
But then how do I play a smart selfish person who doesn't play just like a good guy?
You need occasional in-game choices where the "good" option leads to failure.
You need occasional in-game choices where the "good" option leads to failure.
Or at least a substantial enough sacrifice that the cost-benefit favours "bad". Like IMO the anvil of the void.
You assume playing someone with different morals than you isn't fun. That's not the case... at least not for everyone.
Many people feel that playing a goody-two-shoes who always saves the day and experiences zero consequence for it is extremely boring and not fun.
It can be an interesting roleplaying exercise to create a moral code based on some unexpected principle to see where it leads.
But then, sometimes games do things like assuming that the PC opposes slavery (but only some of the time), and the whole thing falls apart.
Or at least a substantial enough sacrifice that the cost-benefit favours "bad". Like IMO the anvil of the void.
I wish we'd been allowed to try to save both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire, only to have that choice lead to losing them both.
Retour en haut