119 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I think they shouldn't be constrained to a particular dichotomy, but should present the choices that fit the situation.

Ultimately, it's the players job to actually pay attention to the choices offered and pick what fits your character.

[BabyPuncher]

No, make it more evil. You should be able to play as a total psychopath.

 

Agreed.

 

The writers should embrace an 'evil' playthrough for what it is.

 

I don't think there's ever been a large scale RPG game where characters to react to the player's optional 'evil' actions in any sort of 'realistic,' appropriate manner. You simply can't. It would derail the story.

 

The writers should stop fighting that and embrace the silliness. Make 'evil' protagonists psychopaths who murder a dozen people before noon for ridiculously trivial reasons. 

[wolfhowwl]

No, make it more evil. You should be able to play as a total psychopath.

 

No they shouldn't. That would be a regression to something that BioWare was long criticized for.

 

Besides you can always replay Kotor again if you want that.

[BabyPuncher]

No they shouldn't. That would be a regression to something that BioWare was long criticized for.

 

Besides you can always replay Kotor again if you want that.

 

No, the regression would be clumsily trying to sell 'evil' characters as smart and pragmatic when they clearly aren't. 

 

A smarter, better written story needs to be moving away from that. To accept 'evil' playthroughs for what they are.

[wolfhowwl]

Nah. Story-driven games are moving past boring binary morality and the juvenile idea of an evil path that consists of obnoxious thuggery and buffoonish mischief.

 

ME3 Renegade was significantly better written than the previous games and a lot of that had to do with dropping some of the dumb crap that littered ME1 and ME2.

[God]

No.

A psychopath would never become commander.

This is my main gripe with renegade Shepard. A person like that would NEVER, EVER have risen to the rank of Commander.

 

Sure they would have. If you know how to hide it, it's easy enough. And for the US military anyway, we recognize that and turn it into something beneficial.

[God]

No, the regression would be clumsily trying to sell 'evil' characters as smart and pragmatic when they clearly aren't. 

 

A smarter, better written story needs to be moving away from that. To accept 'evil' playthroughs for what they are.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot, heroic characters that are good and honorable are also smart and pragmatic, even when they literally put their honor above reason. But then again, in your world view, honor will always trump reason. 

 

Practical is not the same as idealistic. Renegade is much more practical than paragon. If anything, we need to see your idea of heroism being punished more.

[BabyPuncher]

Nah. Story-driven games are moving past boring binary morality and the juvenile idea of an evil path that consists of obnoxious thuggery and buffoonish mischief.

 

ME3 Renegade was significantly better written than the previous games and a lot of that had to do with dropping some of the dumb crap that littered ME1 and ME2.

 

Goodness me. Is that why Vivienne demonstrates how brilliant and pragmatic she is by moving furniture around and coming up with a laughable plan to get back at someone who made a petty insult at her? Because we've moved past buffoonish mischief? And here I thought that was all ridiculous. But it turns out we've 'moved past that' and Vivienne is a super-smart manipulator after all. Maturity and pragmatism at work.

 

Is that why the dialogue in dealing with oh so pragmatic, mature, realist, intelligent, Leliana is so ridiculous? I mean really, when you peel back the cutesy little comments, it certainly comes off as 'obnoxious thuggery' to me. Emphasis on the 'obnoxious' part. Of course, if this sort of thing had been understood, perhaps we would have gotten actual competent dialogue from the Inquisitor commanding the brat to shut her mouth. Oh, but we can't have that. That threatens the super-pragmatic-realism of these super-duper competent characters.

 

Goodness, I'm just so completely overwhelmed by the sheer smartness of these characters. So much pragmatism. Someday I hope to move furniture around and murder people for writing a silly song.

[monicasubzero]

I can't think about a Mass Effect game without a Renegade protagonist. Being pure evil or a mid way (Renegon/Paragade) was the best part of the game!

[God]

Goodness me. Is that why Vivienne demonstrates how brilliant and pragmatic she is by moving furniture around and coming up with a laughable plan to get back at someone who made a petty insult at her? Because we've moved past buffoonish mischief? And here I thought that was all ridiculous. But it turns out we've 'moved past that' and Vivienne is a super-smart manipulator after all. Maturity and pragmatism at work.

 

Is that why the dialogue in dealing with oh so pragmatic, mature, realist, intelligent, Leliana is so ridiculous? I mean really, when you peel back the cutesy little comments, it certainly comes off as 'obnoxious thuggery' to me. Emphasis on the 'obnoxious' part. Of course, if this sort of thing had been understood, perhaps we would have gotten actual competent dialogue from the Inquisitor commanding the brat to shut her mouth. Oh, but we can't have that. That threatens the super-pragmatic-realism of these super-duper competent characters.

 

Goodness, I'm just so completely overwhelmined by the sheer smartness of these characters. So much pragmatism. Someday I hope to move furniture around and murder people for writing a silly song.

 

Sounds more like you're mad that your point of view isn't being validated. Hows that feel David? Or is it Blob? Blob from Accounting?

 

I wonder how the mods would react to that? I think I should tell them.

 

As I recall, you did the same thing once, getting angry that someone displayed more wisdom than you. The Javik/honor thread? Where you insisted that honor somehow matters, without explaining how or why?

 

As it was there, it is here. What makes you think that anyone here, or anyone at BioWare, should take what you have to say seriously? You can't provide an argument beyond 'I don't like this cuz it's mean! I don't like pragmatism cuz I can't be hero with it!'

 

That's all it is. And it's a bloody bad joke.

[wolfhowwl]

Goodness me. Is that why Vivienne demonstrates how brilliant and pragmatic she is by moving furniture around and coming up with a laughable plan to get back at someone who made a petty insult at her? Because we've moved past buffoonish mischief? And here I thought that was all ridiculous. But it turns out we've 'moved past that' and Vivienne is a super-smart manipulator after all. Maturity and pragmatism at work.

 

Is that why the dialogue in dealing with oh so pragmatic, mature, realist, intelligent, Leliana is so ridiculous? I mean really, when you peel back the cutesy little comments, it certainly comes off as 'obnoxious thuggery' to me. Emphasis on the 'obnoxious' part. Of course, if this sort of thing had been understood, perhaps we would have gotten actual competent dialogue from the Inquisitor commanding the brat to shut her mouth. Oh, but we can't have that. That threatens the super-pragmatic-realism of these super-duper competent characters.

 

Goodness, I'm just so completely overwhelmed by the sheer smartness of these characters. So much pragmatism. Someday I hope to move furniture around and murder people for writing a silly song.

 

What is this supposed to prove? The post you replied to was talking about how people are tired of boring good vs. evil morality in RPGs and are no longer interested in "evil" playthroughs that are just silly thuggery.

 

If the stuff you are talking about in your post is bad then it is just a condemnation of a poor writing team at one mid-tier developer. Their alleged ineptitude doesn't support your rather silly ideas on "heroism" and evil, it just means that BioWare should hire more talented writers.

 

Fortunately a much better written game will be coming next month and will be showing everyone how it is done.

[Han Shot First]

I agree with the OP, at least if the character is another military officer like Shepard. That isn't to say that there shouldn't be options for the character to act ruthless in the game, just that any ruthless action should also have some sort of pragmatic justification and not just be the player's toon killing people for the lulz.

 

Now if the player character is a pirate or a mercenary or something along those lines...than renegade should have an option to be L'Ollonais in space.

 

It should be dictated by the character's background.

[God]

That's just a condemnation of a poor writing team at one mid-tier developer. Their alleged ineptitude doesn't support your rather silly ideas on "heroism" and evil, it just means that BioWare should hire more talented writers.

 

Fortunately a much better written game will be coming next month and will be showing everyone how it is done.

 

And he'll whine that that's poor writing as well. 

 

It's only good writing if the hero wins heroically and is praised as heroic hero of heroism.

[Kynare]

Agreed.

 

The writers should embrace an 'evil' playthrough for what it is.

 

I don't think there's ever been a large scale RPG game where characters to react to the player's optional 'evil' actions in any sort of 'realistic,' appropriate manner. You simply can't. It would derail the story.

 

The writers should stop fighting that and embrace the silliness. Make 'evil' protagonists psychopaths who murder a dozen people before noon for ridiculously trivial reasons. 

 

That's why I wish they had given an option to stay loyal to Cerberus. Except not because they're "evil"--but because I think that would have really embraced the path of a true "renegade" character (literal definition: one who deserts or betrays an organization, ie. the Alliance, who Shepard was with for quite a long time regardless of their background)

 

I think they should have stuck with Renegade being a ruthless person for any reason except "just for fun". Someone who gets the job done, someone who doesn't give second chances... never "because I felt like it" or "it was funny". I often felt like Renegade was too impulsive for my liking and the opposite of practical during many interrupts. ME3 Renegade was actually better in that regard.

[Daemul]

David, why do you keep on coming back to the forum? Surely you have better stuff to do than get banned repeatedly?

[Asdrubael Vect]

Renegade need to have more sense and profit from such choices not just stupid evil for nothing and what cause you damage

 

this was the reason why i almost not use Renegade, this was not about evil or good, but about sense and profit...i would like to be evil-ruthless man but i will never do this if it not give me anything and less than when i do good things

 

i think this morality system was one of the problems in rpg when you do morally good things and tell people(especially if we not have other variant of dialogue what make it clear that you do this not because you truly want to help someone and lie about you good intentions) good things not because your character good, but because this give you more profit

[Golden_Persona]

Renegade in 3 actually felt like it made the most sense out of all the other renegades. In a war of such scale one can't afford to be so sensitive and sympathetic. The choices actually were hard to make, and at times I felt like looking away after making certain decisions because it was very hard to see my Shepard do such things. I think when you have Paragon that offers the same solutions with less bloodshed though it makes renegade pointless.

 

I feel like ME1 had the worst renegade. Being xenophobic just feels wrong, and a lot of the time it didn't matter which option you took, red or blue, because Shepard would say the same things.

 

Surprise surprise, but I loved ME2's paragon and renegade the best, once you figure out how the system works to avoid being blocked out of choices. ME2 overall was a blast with some really awesome moments of badarsery, moments of pure trolling fun, and still had moments of cruelty. Not to mention choosing renegade choices actually made certain fights more difficult. If you don't electrocute the Batarian then the boss fight in Garrus' recruitment mission gets more health. If you don't blow up the Clan Werlock speaker then you have to fight him along with the rest of his squad. Meanwhile paragon options kept more people alive or allowed dialogues to continue on longer, which meant more information to discover.

 

While I still want renegade and paragon to be in MEN, I don't want them expressed through meters, and I don't their choices to be blocked off just because you don't have enough points. Every situation is different, and I rarely play purely to one side anymore. While my Paragon Shepards will spare you if you surrender or don't initiate combat to begin with, s/he will shove you out of a window or elecrocute you if you are a rival mercenary to make it easier to save his/her friend.

[omgodzilla]

Don't forget dooming the Krogan, Quarian or Geth races to destruction and killing up to six of your current or previous crew members by your own hand.  It's funny you forgot to mention those, since they seem more evil to me.

 

EDIT: Oh wait, those Renegade choices were in ME3!

 

I'm sorry but just how in the blue end of hell is killing the Quarians or the Geth a renegade decision? There's a friggin renegade persuasion where you can save them both (in addition to the paragon one). If you can't do the persuasion then one of the races WILL die. You HAVE to pick one and leave the other to die. Just like picking between Ashley and Kaiden. In what universe does that count as a paragon/renegade decision? It doesn't. Stop blaming renegade for stuff he didn't do. If killing one race is a renegade decision then killing the other has to be a paragon decision. 

 

Also, there were some very good reasons to sabotage the genophage cure. You can roleplay as a Shepard who doesn't trust the Krogan to be able to form a stable government. And honestly, that's not that hard to believe. Look at real life. Iraq and Libya turned into unstable hellholes (more so than before) after their tyrannical dictators were overthrown. As bad as Saddam and Gadaffi were, they did keep everyone in line, just as the genophage kept the Krogan in line. Don't you think its possible that after the genophage is cured, that certain groups of Krogan can band together and attack the Turians/Salarians? I find it hard to believe that Wrex can manage to keep control over an entire specie.. We know that's not possible. We even saw it in ME2. Or did you forget Uvenk and those Bloodpack guys? They obviously didn't ally with Wrex. And the Krogan will have a massive population after the genophage is cured. Lets not forget that. Oh and dont' say "I didn't see any Krogan rebellion on the epilogue slides!". First of all, the epilogue slides only show you like 2 pictures. Secondly, you can't predict the future when you're making these decisions. 

 

Also, in addition to not trusting the Krogan, there's also the fact that we needed Salarian support, which in itself justified sabotaging the genophage. You're acting like Shepard made this decision because he's just a heartless bastard. Are you simply gonna ignore all the justifications behind this choice?  If you're gonna call Shepard evil for doing this, you might as well call the US evil for using the atomic bombs. 

 

Also, look at the way Shepard reacted to shooting Mordin. He didn't give an evil grin. He looked up with guilt and threw his gun away. He acted like a human being and felt like a bastard but still believed that it had to be done. These are not the actions of an evil person. 

 

As for the squadmates:

 

Kaiden/Ashley = Completely justified. They were pointing a gun at you. Hell, Garrus would shoot them if you don't (assuming you don't stop him). This was self defense. Time was running out. You had to stop Udina.

 

Mordin = I already discussed this. If you choose to sabotage the genophage, then Mordin refuses to stand down. Shepard warns him MULTIPLE times but Mordin doesn't stand down. He forced Shepard's hand. 

 

Wrex = Once again, this was self-defense. Wrex was trying to kill Shepard. Shepard had to fight back. Plain and Simple.

 

Samara = This isn't even a renegade decision. She dies if you don't choose the paragon interrupt. This one is hard to justify but its not even a renegade decision so....

 

 

And those are all I can think of. There really aren't any other renegade decisions in ME3 where you kill a squadmate. 

 

 

TLDR 

-Killing the Quarians/Geth was NOT a renegade decision. If you can't do the persuasion, then you HAVE to kill one race. No paragon/ranegade decision there. Sabotaging the genophage was justified because the Krogan have a history of violent rebellion and also, you needed Salarian support. Killing Kaiden/Ashley/Wrex was self-defense. Shepard shoots Mordin because he wouldn't stand down (even after multiple warnings).  

[BabyPuncher]

Also, there were some very good reasons to sabotage the genophage cure. You can roleplay as a Shepard who doesn't trust the Krogan to be able to form a stable government. And honestly, that's not that hard to believe. Look at real life. Iraq and Libya turned into unstable hellholes (more so than before) after their tyrannical dictators were overthrown. As bad as Saddam and Gadaffi were, they did keep everyone in line, just as the genophage kept the Krogan in line. Don't you think its possible that after the genophage is cured, that certain groups of Krogan can band together and attack the Turians/Salarians? I find it hard to believe that Wrex can manage to keep control over an entire specie.. We know that's not possible. We even saw it in ME2. Or did you forget Uvenk and those Bloodpack guys? They obviously didn't ally with Wrex. And the Krogan will have a massive population after the genophage is cured. Lets not forget that. Oh and dont' say "I didn't see any Krogan rebellion on the epilogue slides!". First of all, the epilogue slides only show you like 2 pictures. Secondly, you can't predict the future when you're making these decisions.

 

There is no scenario where not curing the krogan is a smart decision. Even in the absolute worst outcome of the krogan becoming hostile and populous afterwards, it's still an inanely stupid action.

 

Whatever the krogan may or may not do afterwards is effectively irrelevant. The entire galaxy is going to die. And just because we as players know something is going to happen to defeat the Reapers, that doesn't mean characters in the story do.

 

In any case, the krogan have no ships, no serious infrastructure, and no serious weapons technology. They're not going to hold their breath and jump to other planets.

 

And this is all assuming the worst case scenario in the first place.

[omgodzilla]

There is no scenario where not curing the krogan is a smart decision. Even in the absolute worst outcome of the krogan becoming hostile and populous afterwards, it's still an inanely stupid action.

 

Whatever the krogan may or may not do afterwards is effectively irrelevant. The entire galaxy is going to die. And just because we as players know something is going to happen to defeat the Reapers, that doesn't mean characters in the story do.

 

In any case, the krogan have no ships, no serious infrastructure, and no serious weapons technology. They're not going to hold their breath and jump to other planets.

 

And this is all assuming the worst case scenario in the first place.

 

Lets not forget that the other species will be weakened severely after the war and there is not a single species that can thrive in hostile conditions better than the Krogan. Add to that, their massive growth rate, and they can become a force to be reckoned with. The Krogan likely did receive ships/supplies during the war. Those could be used for them to land massive numbers of shock troops against the other races while they are weak. But even if you don't believe that the Krogan could be a threat after the war, you're still ignoring the fact that we need Salarian support. Yes, you do eventually receive a fleet (not all of their fleets, just a single one) after saving the Salarian counciler, but you couldn't have known that when making the choice to sabotage the genophage. As far as you knew, the Salarians would cut off support completely if you cured the genophage. And seeing as how the key to stopping the Reapers was the crucible and how the Salarians are one of the most technologically advanced races in the galaxy, I think it's a wise decision to have them on your side. 

 

The goal of the war is to defeat the Reapers. That doesn't mean that every single species has to survive. Also, Mordin mentions numerous times in ME2, that the genophage is not equivalent to genocide. Its just meant to keep the Krogan population stable. Sabotaging the genophage doesn't automatically mean that the Krogan are all gonna die off. It's possible they could recover. A slim chance, if they lose too many soldiers but its not completely unimaginable. 

[BabyPuncher]

The salarians are not going to go to waste. They're organized. They have ships, technology, weapons, supplies. They're not going to power their ships down and let the Reapers blow them up just to spite Shepard.

 

The krogan, on the other hand, will go to waste. They have none to little of those necessary things. Without the cure, they're effectively being thrown away as an asset. 

 

So yes, it's a very stupid decision.

 

And the idea of the krogan landing 'massive numbers of shock troops' is just silly.

[The Elder King]

While I understand the logic behind the Cure's sabotage (And I don't agree With David that it's a stupid decision) , I'd say that curing them is a better solution. In-game We do know that We need foot soldiers, and the krogans are the best in this.
Also, while the Krogans aren't the brighter race in the galaxy, I don't think they're stupid enough to risk their future another time. Expecially if Wrex is in charge.

[omgodzilla]

The salarians are not going to go to waste. They're organized. They have ships, technology, weapons, supplies. They're not going to power their ships down and let the Reapers blow them up just to spite Shepard.

 

The krogan, on the other hand, will go to waste. They have none to little of those necessary things. Without the cure, they're effectively being thrown away as an asset. 

 

So yes, it's a very stupid decision.

 

And the idea of the krogan landing 'massive numbers of shock troops' is just silly.

Unless the Salarians suddenly decide to help Shep with the crucible, their organization won't mean ****. They would only be delaying the inevitable. political division like this only makes a Reaper victory that much faster. Besides, when you make the sabotage, you have very good reason to believe that that the Krogan won't know of your betrayal. We didn't know that wrex had another mole In the STG. So basically, we would be getting both the Salarians AND the Krogan. Krogan shock troops + Salarian scientific expertise on the crucible sounds like a damn good deal to me.

[BabyPuncher]

Well, arguing logistics about the Crucible is pretty much pointless either way, since the whole thing is an idiotically contrived mess that literally exists solely to take on whatever properties BioWare needs it to to make the plot function.

 

It's very poorly written magic, for all intents and purposes.

 

And there is no way the krogan would be careless enough not to test if the cure actually did anything or not. Even if the entire planet of billions somehow lacked the expertise and equipment, they could easily just hire someone else to do it.