82 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

 Renegade Shep was lame in ME1&2. It is one thing to be a pr!ck, it is another to be a pr!ck and do everything for the sole purpose of being one. It does not balance out the idealistic Paragon path by coming up with other, more efficient (if less moral) ways to get as good/better results,

The "more effiicent" isn't something I particularly like. Neither way should be fundamentally more efficient. Sometimes cooperating and persuading will be. Sometimes that will take longer but get better results in the long run. Sometimes threatening will get quick results in the short term but leave resentment and dislike that'll be a long term problem. Sometimes those won't be true. Sometimes shooting someone will be avoiding a very real risk, sometimes it'll be being a jerk who hides that under "playing it safe". The ideal Shepard should be one who's good a judging which of those is the most appropriate, but unfortunately the game doesn't play out that way.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The "more effiicent" isn't something I particularly like. Neither way should be fundamentally more efficient. Sometimes cooperating and persuading will be. Sometimes that will take longer but get better results in the long run. Sometimes threatening will get quick results in the short term but leave resentment and dislike that'll be a long term problem. Sometimes those won't be true. Sometimes shooting someone will be avoiding a very real risk, sometimes it'll be being a jerk who hides that under "playing it safe". The ideal Shepard should be one who's good a judging which of those is the most appropriate, but unfortunately the game doesn't play out that way.

 

To be clear, by "more efficient" I just mean "easier/more convenient," not necessarily better in the results. We are in agreement, in fact.

[Reorte]

Fair enough. I suspect most people think similarly to be honest which is why Paragade and Renegon Shepards seem to be the most popular - they're also the most plausible.

[Fixers0]

 Renegade Shep was lame in ME1&2. It is one thing to be a pr!ck, it is another to be a pr!ck and do everything for the sole purpose of being one. It does not balance out the idealistic Paragon path by coming up with other, more efficient (if less moral) ways to get as good/better results, but simply to troll it up for the lulz (and have less to show for it in the end). I can see how that would appeal to less mature elements of the fanbase like NeonFlux117, but for the rest of us, it was corny.

 

I completey disagree with this assesment, If anything, Renegade in ME1 was the most ideological out of the series, following a staunch pro-human/alliance "better safe than sorry mentality",  Apprehending Balak, Neutralizing the Rachni Queen, Taking care of Wrex, Supporting Terra Firma and Sacrificing the Council are examples, Even the more cold-hearted decisions like executing Shiala or Rana could be justified in this manner. Personally I would't call this "troll it up the lulz", unless my vision on morality would be extremely narrow. Nontheless, no one would deny that the morality system was full of defunct elements, the fact that the even tried framing every decision on one of only two idealogical paths is just one of them, for the most part ME1 was fairly consistent in making paragon the pro-council/cooperation and renegade the pro-human, survivialist approach, though there were certainly outliers, thinks like punching the reporter (which happens in all three games), for example.

[Valmar]

I completey disagree with this assesment, If anything, Renegade in ME1 was the most ideological out of the series, following a staunch pro-human/alliance "better safe than sorry mentality",  Apprehending Balak, Neutralizing the Rachni Queen, Taking care of Wrex, Supporting Terra Firma and Sacrificing the Council are examples, Even the more cold-hearted decisions like executing Shiala or Rana could be justified in this manner. Personally I would't call this "troll it up the lulz", unless my vision on morality would be extremely narrow. Nontheless, no one would deny that the morality system was full of defunct elements, the fact that the even tried framing every decision on one of only two idealogical paths is just one of them, for the most part ME1 was fairly consistent in making paragon the pro-council/cooperation and renegade the pro-human, survivialist approach, though there were certainly outliers, thinks like punching the reporter (which happens in all three games), for example.

 

I completely disagree with this assessment.

 

Punching her was to the benefit of every human. It was a very pro-human thing to do. Deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try not to take me too seriously.

[themikefest]

I like  talking with the reporter in ME1. The renegade answers I like. I only punched her once in ME1

[Reorte]

Much more satisfying to completely beat her at her own game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I completey disagree with this assesment, If anything, Renegade in ME1 was the most ideological out of the series, following a staunch pro-human/alliance "better safe than sorry mentality",  Apprehending Balak, Neutralizing the Rachni Queen, Taking care of Wrex, Supporting Terra Firma and Sacrificing the Council are examples, Even the more cold-hearted decisions like executing Shiala or Rana could be justified in this manner. Personally I would't call this "troll it up the lulz", unless my vision on morality would be extremely narrow. Nontheless, no one would deny that the morality system was full of defunct elements, the fact that the even tried framing every decision on one of only two idealogical paths is just one of them, for the most part ME1 was fairly consistent in making paragon the pro-council/cooperation and renegade the pro-human, survivialist approach, though there were certainly outliers, thinks like punching the reporter (which happens in all three games), for example.

 

And I disagree with your disagree.

 

First off, "pro-human" is a stupid stance to take when you uncover the Reaper threat and realize that you need all the damn help you can get against it. At least, if you are not going to promote the Council races, then you should look to the other races for support. However, the Renegade stance does not do this -- it is about humanity tackling these problems without allies, completely independent. It lasts for all of 1 game because it is a stupid and unsustainable strategy against a galactic threat.

 

As for the individual decisions, whatever good reasons the player can come up with for any given Renegade decision is pissed on by Renegade Shepard's awful stated reasons for doing them almost every time. The player can headcanon that Shepard did not say/think what he does in-game, but going off of what we can see/know, Shepard's reasons for doing them are not honorable.

 

Rachni --> Shepard callously tells them to "stay dead," stands and watches it drown in acid whilst smiling maniacally.

Balak --> the pure Renegade path in this mission is to not simply apprehend him, but also needlessly torture him, and then leave without either executing or capturing him. Nothing rational about that.

Terra Firma --> Though the group has some reasonable goals, there are racist elements of it that are not hidden, and this goes back to what I said above.

Sacrificing the Council --> Shepard's reasons if the Renegade response is chosen is basically petty vengeance. The option exists to make it a tactical decision rather than a spiteful one, but that is the "Neutral" response, not Renegade.

Shiala/Rana --> Shepard executes them remorselessly. The irony of this is that in ME3, shooting Falere gets tons of grief from fans, but in that scene Shepard is forced to express regret and indicate he is only doing so because he feels the danger is too great.

[Valmar]

And I disagree with your disagree.

 

You disagree with him not agreeing with your opinion?

 

Rachni --> Shepard callously tells them to "stay dead," stands and watches it drown in acid whilst smiling maniacally.

Balak --> the pure Renegade path in this mission is to not simply apprehend him, but also needlessly torture him, and then leave without either executing or capturing him. Nothing rational about that.

Terra Firma --> Though the group has some reasonable goals, there are racist elements of it that are not hidden, and this goes back to what I said above.

Sacrificing the Council --> Shepard's reasons if the Renegade response is chosen is basically petty vengeance. The option exists to make it a tactical decision rather than a spiteful one, but that is the "Neutral" response, not Renegade.

Shiala/Rana --> Shepard executes them remorselessly. The irony of this is that in ME3, shooting Falere gets tons of grief from fans, but in that scene Shepard is forced to express regret and indicate he is only doing so because he feels the danger is too great.

 

Rachni: They shown up to that point to be monsters that only wanted war. The queen paints a different tale, sure, but that doesn't change how history remembers them up until that point. These were war beasts that denied any peace talks and only sought the destruction of our worlds. How terribly convenient now that this last remaining queen can say "oh but it wasn't our fault! demons did it! We innocent, swear!"

 

The Reapers had a sudden justification in the end, too. Yet I'm willing to bet few care if Shepard grins or takes pleasure from completely wiping them out.

 

Balak: After all he did to those those innocent civilians I'm finding it hard to care about him being tortured a little. Bastard tried to kill millions. I won't lose sleep over his suffering.

 

Terra Firma: So because a few nut jobs have extremist views any support for the party itself is inherently wrong? Someone should alert the republicans.

 

Sacrificing the Council: "We're not sacrificing human lives to save the council. Hold our ships back until they can get a shot at sovereign." Regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment of not wanting to sacrifice human lives for the stuck up council that has shown disdain and disregard for humanity it can still be pointed out that holding ships back to get a shot at sovereign is a tactical decision, even if it is laced with other overtones.

 

Shiala/Rana: Comparing either of these to Falera is unfair. Both Shiala and Rana were working for Saren, the enemy. Shiala may not had known what she was getting herself into but we are to just to accept her word that her actions were forced and against her will by some magical space ship. How convenient. We don't know about indoctrination at this point, this is the first we've heard of it. We just have to take it to her that the ship somehow controls peoples brains and that she is innocent. Foresight is 20-20, sure, but at the time I don't see killing her as being inherently wrong. Though I would had arrested her for her involvement instead - sadly that isn't an option.

 

Rana was working for a madman and performing horrible experiments. Would killing "Dr. Heart" had been inherently wrong if he had  said "oh but I had no choice, it was to save my son!" A sad story or excuse does little to change the wrongs you've committed. Whether I agree with killing Rana or not I don't think killing her is inherently wrong.

 

Neither of these cases are like Falera. Falera had committed no wrong nor was associated with any terrorist. Her only crime was that she was born with a genetic mutation. She is dangerous, yes, but killing her solely because she presents a possible threat is not the same as killing those who have actively committed horrible crimes already.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 No, no, no. You are not listening, Valmar. Deliberately, I suspect, seeing as many of your responses ignore what I said while bringing up things I already responded to and dismissed (you brought up Shepard's dialogue for sacrificing the Council through the neutral dialogue option, not the Renegade one, which you omitted).

 

I acknowledge the existence of viable reasons for all those actions. However, Shepard's stated reasons for doing them are awful, which contributes to the thematic issues with the Renegade path. Shepard is not doing those things for pragmatic reasons, just to be a pr!ck, per his words.

 

Worse yet, there is never any alternative provided to whatever Paragon Shepard seeks to gain. Shepard wants to undermine the Council races? Fine. How is he going to make up for that lost support, though? Were he smart, he'd go to the non-Council races instead. Nope. So for all Shepard's willingness to get his hands dirty, he never uses that to his advantage to get as much support or more than Paragon Shepard, who in contrast expresses unwillingness to do things that may be necessary to get the job done.

[congokong]

My canon is a renegade and she's hardly a dickhead. Yes, if you're auto-renegade then you'll find your character to be kind of a monster at times. Ex: Siding with Morinth over Samara.

 

I suggest actually playing a renegade but make them humane. A lot of the renegade choices for example have strong justification (kill the rachni queen, focus on Sovereign, destroy Maelon's research, keep the Collector Base, trick Wreav, etc.)

[CrutchCricket]

... or you could just pick the option you like, or agree with and not worry if it's blue or red?

 

Otherwise I think you could've justified more psychotic choices in ME3 by saying that the pressure is getting to us. Not at the expense of pragmatic reasoning necessarily. But I wonder if you can RP a Shepard a inch from snapping.

 

Oh wait. ME3... RP

 

 

That was a good one.

[Abelas Forever!]

Yeah, as I said shooting her is executing a completely innocent civilan, who always abided all very restrictive laws concerning people with her condition,  for crimes she might commit in the future (which no justice system that can be taken serious ever does).

Plus seriously, Shepard is in the middle of a galxaxy wide apocaplypse whit the most likely outcome of every member of advanced societies dying a gruesome dath. Being concered about how dangerous Falere is in this sitation is ridicioulous. What's the worst she can do if she (for some sudden reason) decides to leave the monastaery? Kill one person every few weeks like Morinth? Well people are already dying in the billions anyways. Hell renegade Shepard alone is more of a danger to all living things than Morinth and Falere combined.

And the "risk" of the Reapers turning her in a Banshee? Well better shoot a civilian in the face because if I don't the Reapers might have one more Banshee amongst the dozens to hundreds they alreday have at their disposal not to mention the millions of husks. Following this logic better shoot every Krogan and turian you meet as well, because those brutes are a serious bother as well.

Ardat-Yakshi who don't live in the monastery are executed and Shepard just destroyed the monastery so I don't think that there would a trial if Shepard chooses to kill her. Besides she is not an ordinary civilian. Shepard can spare her life if he/she trusts her enough. But like I said there are risks. The worst thing that can happen is that she is lying to you all the time and after you have left she leaves the monastery and starts to kill high ranking military officers. Or maybe she will tell you the truth and she will stay there but what if somebody gets lost and go to that monastery while she is there? What if that person is the first one who she kills because she can't control herself and then starts killing high ranking military officers? Banshee is dangerous enemy. It's not the biggest risk that exists if you spare her. It's a risk anyway. So if Shepard kills her it doesn't mean that she/he is a sociopath or a murderer.

[fhs33721]

Ardat-Yakshi who don't live in the monastery are executed and Shepard just destroyed the monastery so I don't think that there would a trial if Shepard chooses to kill her. Besides she is not an ordinary civilian. Shepard can spare her life if he/she trusts her enough. But like I said there are risks. The worst thing that can happen is that she is lying to you all the time and after you have left she leaves the monastery and starts to kill high ranking military officers. Or maybe she will tell you the truth and she will stay there but what if somebody gets lost and go to that monastery while she is there? What if that person is the first one who she kills because she can't control herself and then starts killing high ranking military officers? Banshee is dangerous enemy. It's not the biggest risk that exists if you spare her. It's a risk anyway. So if Shepard kills her it doesn't mean that she/he is a sociopath or a murderer.

Ah, yes it does. I'm pretty sure it is murder if you kill an unarmed person that doesn't fight back in any way. And someone who commits murder is a murderer by definition. You can sugarcoat the descision all you want with how dangerous Falere might be and how much of a risk it is to let her live but that doesn't change the fact that it is murder.

So Sheaprd in this scenario is a murderer in any case though not necessarily a sociopath (if you squint both eyes and headcanon a lot of  excuses for her/him that is).

[Winterking]

As for the individual decisions, whatever good reasons the player can come up with for any given Renegade decision is pissed on by Renegade Shepard's awful stated reasons for doing them almost every time. The player can headcanon that Shepard did not say/think what he does in-game, but going off of what we can see/know, Shepard's reasons for doing them are not honorable.

 

Rachni --> Shepard callously tells them to "stay dead," stands and watches it drown in acid whilst smiling maniacally.

Shepard looks less of a sadistic bastard if you take Ashley or Wrex to Noveria. If you choose the option of saving the Rachi Queen, either Wrex or Ashley will argue in favor of killing her and Shepard can agree with them and not like he takes pleasure in causing genocide.

 

[Abelas Forever!]

Ah, yes it does. I'm pretty sure it is murder if you kill an unarmed person that doesn't fight back in any way. And someone who commits murder is a murderer by definition. You can sugarcoat the descision all you want with how dangerous Falere might be and how much of a risk it is to let her live but that doesn't change the fact that it is murder.

So Sheaprd in this scenario is a murderer in any case though not necessarily a sociopath (if you squint both eyes and headcanon a lot of  excuses for her/him that is).

Actually Shepard follows the procedure what to do with Ardath-Yakshi when they are outside the monastery and because of that Shepard is not a murderer.

[Pasquale1234]

Rachni: They shown up to that point to be monsters that only wanted war. The queen paints a different tale, sure, but that doesn't change how history remembers them up until that point. These were war beasts that denied any peace talks and only sought the destruction of our worlds. How terribly convenient now that this last remaining queen can say "oh but it wasn't our fault! demons did it! We innocent, swear!"

There's a reason why we hear the rachni's plea immediately after learning about the realities of indoctrination from Benezia.

It is, imho, one of the places where awarding P/R points doesn't make a lot of sense, because it assumes a motivation for the choice. Paragon = idealistic, Renegade = pragmatic - but this is one of those places where you can make a 'paragon' choice for purely pragmatic reasons. You mean I can have an entire species owe me their entire existence? A species that shares memories, and isn't going to forget that Shepard, a human, prevented their extinction? Yes, please.
 

The Reapers had a sudden justification in the end, too. Yet I'm willing to bet few care if Shepard grins or takes pleasure from completely wiping them out.

Ending the reaper threat was Shepard's #1 priority since ME1. Everything else was just a sidenote or in service to that goal.

Harbinger had harrassed Shepard endlessly, the reapers had killed not only billions in the current cycle, but many more in previous cycles. Shepard really ought to take great satisfaction in finally accomplishing that goal.
 

Terra Firma: So because a few nut jobs have extremist views any support for the party itself is inherently wrong? Someone should alert the republicans.

Aside from shunning greater involvement and integration into greater galactic society, what exactly did they stand for?

Shiala/Rana: Comparing either of these to Falera is unfair. Both Shiala and Rana were working for Saren, the enemy. Shiala may not had known what she was getting herself into but we are to just to accept her word that her actions were forced and against her will by some magical space ship. How convenient. We don't know about indoctrination at this point, this is the first we've heard of it. We just have to take it to her that the ship somehow controls peoples brains and that she is innocent. Foresight is 20-20, sure, but at the time I don't see killing her as being inherently wrong. Though I would had arrested her for her involvement instead - sadly that isn't an option.

What did Shiala do, exactly? She'd been somehow consumed by the thorian - and we saw the effects the thorian had on other colonists prior to meeting the original. The ones we fought in the thorian lair were clones. I'm not even sure she had been indoctrinated by Saren - she seemed completely free of that sort of influence once released from the thorian.
 

Neither of these cases are like Falera. Falera had committed no wrong nor was associated with any terrorist. Her only crime was that she was born with a genetic mutation. She is dangerous, yes, but killing her solely because she presents a possible threat is not the same as killing those who have actively committed horrible crimes already.

Agreed, especially after her solemn promise that she would not allow them to make her a banshee. Falere & Rila were obviously very close, and we witnessed Rila's sacrifice - I would expect Falere to do no less.

[Quarian Master Race]

IMO ME3 full renegade makes one seem more like a full on schizophrenic at points.

Example: Post Priority Geth Dreadnought

Renegade lambasts Admiral Gerrel for his preemptive attack, and has the option to punch him via interrupt. Immediately after, you can go up and talk to Joker, where the Renegade response to Joker's opinion on the subject is to then defend Gerrel's attack as a "difficult decision made in the heat of battle".

Best part is Joker then replies "the fact that you got through that without punching someone, that's what makes you command material".

wat?

[KaiserShep]

I always chose the out of control line to Gerrel, but didn't punch him so that it seemed more fitting, but the renegade line to Joker just struck me as being seriously sarcastic lol. I always loved it like that.

[Quarian Master Race]

Forgot to mention that renegades also encourage the quarians to attack the Dreadnought when the Reaper signal is disabled in the pre mission briefing. So you tell the guy to attack, get mad when he follows through, then defend him immediately afterwards.

 

This also causes paragons to do the same thing, advocating for a withdrawl, then telling Gerrel he made the "right call" for attacking.

[MrFob]

Forgot to mention that renegades also encourage the quarians to attack the Dreadnought when the Reaper signal is disabled in the pre mission briefing. So you tell the guy to attack, get mad when he follows through, then defend him immediately afterwards.

 

This also causes paragons to do the same thing, advocating for a withdrawl, then telling Gerrel he made the "right call" for attacking.

 

This is not a mistake though. In any given dialogue, renegade depicts the brash action, while paragon stands for the diplomatic/cooperative route.

The system is not intended as "playing it renegade" vs. "playing it paragon" all the way through, at least from what I see. It does not free you of making choices in each dialogue if you want to play a consistent character (if you really want that, that's what action mode is for).

Granted, you don't know exactly what Shep will do in the renegade interrupt but from the cinematic lead-up, you get a pretty good idea. If you are playing an inconsistent character, don't blame the placement of the dialogue options for it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Honestly I hate the paragon - renegade system. The interrupts are fun, but blue/red dialogue options are crap.

 

* In ME2 for example, if you want 100% loyalty, you're forced to play nearly 100% paragon or renegade throughout the game. If you don't, the only way out of the final "problem" is not to activate Legion until after the Suicide Mission - then do his loyalty mission when loyalty of Tali or Legion doesn't matter and you can say "Don't send the file."

 

* That will ensure that you have Legion alive and the opportunity to make peace in ME3.

 

Then there are baffling things about the way renegade actions are portrayed. Shepard can be a pure psycho. And if not a pure renegade, Shepard looks kind of schizophrenic. Or then there's the Nineties Action Hero - see the Shepard that would fit in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie - you take pretty much every renegade interrupt and many of the renegade actions, but act sensitive in some scenes like with Asari and Charn; the Baria Frontiers Asari; you kick Conrad instead of shooting him in the foot - but do his quest in a paragon fashion; yet you tell Jack to shoot Aresh because "a bullet in the head solves everything." I know that now.

 

However if you play like this like I said, leave Legion's loyalty mission until after the Suicide Mission especially if you have Stolen Memories - you don't need Legion for the mission, but you need him alive for ME3.

[Han Shot First]

The "more effiicent" isn't something I particularly like. Neither way should be fundamentally more efficient. Sometimes cooperating and persuading will be. Sometimes that will take longer but get better results in the long run. Sometimes threatening will get quick results in the short term but leave resentment and dislike that'll be a long term problem. Sometimes those won't be true. Sometimes shooting someone will be avoiding a very real risk, sometimes it'll be being a jerk who hides that under "playing it safe". The ideal Shepard should be one who's good a judging which of those is the most appropriate, but unfortunately the game doesn't play out that way.

 

I agree with this.

 

Ideally moral decisions in an RPG should balance out. Sometimes playing the nice guy or girl should work, other times the hard@ss approach should yield better results. Each should have their fair share of successes and failures.

[fhs33721]

Actually Shepard follows the procedure what to do with Ardath-Yakshi when they are outside the monastery and because of that Shepard is not a murderer.

Except:

1) She is technically not outside the monastary yet.

2) Shepard is kind of in no position to be the executioner here, since that falls under jurisdiktion of the Asari (Samara, who is authorized to make this descision by Asari law, is ok wih Falere staying a the ruins once Falere claims that is her intention, so again it boils down to murder)

3)Assuming that Shepard actually does follow Asari procedures with executing Falere (a huge If, since I doubt that they actually have procedures for the whole monastary blowing up due to a thir party attack and Ardat-Yakshi surviving and surrendering peacefully) State-sanctionized murder is still murder in my eyes. Falere didn't break any law. It's not her fault the monastary blew up and she still tries to abide the law.

Anyways, murderer and it's not like Shepard hasn't most likely done far worse murdering in the past if you play renegade.

[Display Name Owner]

A lot of people say Renegade got more socio in ME3, but oddly enough I think the opposite. ME1 ReneShep was the most assholish of the bunch imo. You can do more meaninglessly dickish things, like punchin Manuel (which is pretty funny), and getting the undercover investigator and the Salarian bossman to shoot each other on Noveria. The renegade responses tend to be more generally rude as well as far as I recall.

 

In ME2 Renegade was a bit more action heroey I suppose. And in 3, you can do some big things, but to me it never felt like Shep was actually as gleeful about it as in the other games. S/he was just doing what s/he had to do.