154 réponses à ce sujet

[Helios969]

I like the chick in your avatar as well.

Claire from Claymore if you don't know (my favorite anime.)

[Ahriman]

Being a jerk to a teammate then ordering them to do something should result in either laggy orders("Yea, yea i'll do it... Jerk"), ignoring it totally("I won't do it, you're ruthless. Do it on your own"), even complaints to superiors about court marshalling. 

 

Well, to be honest, army is not Google office, being a jerk to your subordinates is a valid strategy. And no, "ignoring it totally" is not an option there.

[Ambivalent]

Well, to be honest, army is not Google office, being a jerk to your subordinates is a valid strategy. And no, "ignoring it totally" is not an option there.

 

Umh only a few guys was from army there. Shephard, Ashley, Kaidan and crew. So it doesn't explain how Garrus, Tali, Wrex etc. would follow Shephard if s/he was a jerk. 

 

About army.

 

You probably heard the term of "Banality of evil".

 

People all around the world wondered how people followed Hitler. War criminals' only defence was "I was following orders" except typical "serving the country". 

 

Not to mention that people were against war against Vietnam and refused to obey orders. Or people against Iraq invasion. Or being Israeli but against their goverments politics on Gaza situation. I'm sure there are more examples, just these came to mind.

 

Anyway it is sometimes a viable option to ignore commands, refuse to obey, change sides or at least fill in a complaint to someone superior to that guy/gal. 

 

Choices can vary but it is about being a tool in army's inventory(Or being a lackey to superior) or being a human that has some positive sides like honor, freedom, ideas etc. 

[Ahriman]

Umh only a few guys was from army there. Shephard, Ashley, Kaidan and crew. So it doesn't explain how Garrus, Tali, Wrex etc. would follow Shephard if s/he was a jerk. 

In ME1 Normandy was a military vessel, so yeah, if they are on board they are supposed to integrate into command chain, even as mercs. They could leave because they aren't bound by contract, but they couldn't stay on Normandy and say "You are no boss to me, jerk".

 

Not to mention that people were against war against Vietnam and refused to obey orders. Or people against Iraq invasion. Or being Israeli but against their goverments politics on Gaza situation. I'm sure there are more examples, just these came to mind.

 

Anyway it is sometimes a viable option to ignore commands, refuse to obey, change sides or at least fill in a complaint to someone superior to that guy/gal.

And what happened to these people? Did it prevent these wars?

Being a jerk (in sense of being insensitive and rude) is way to build up authority among subordinates without creating emotional attachements. It's not best or only way, but it works in military.

[fraggle]

I already voted a few days ago, but now here they are in detail (I needed to leave some out, as I've yet not played all classes etc. and not wanna judge too soon).

 

What gender was your Shepard?  Male

Who was your favourite romance?  Kaidan

Which non-romance option do you wish had been available?  James

Who were your favourite crew members (multiple choice)?  Kaidan, Garrus, Tali, Jack, Mordin, James

What was your Shepard's morality?  Paragade

What was your Shepard's ethnicity?  White (custom)

What was your ME3 ending choice?  Destroy

What was your favourite background for Shepard?  Earthborn & Sole Survivor

What gender will you choose for your first playthrough of ME: Next?  Male

What moral system would you prefer?  ME3 System, but I also like the idea of trying something new. Let's see

What type of romance options would you prefer (multiple choice)?  Human male/female, asari, Turian male/female, Quarian male/female

What type of background would you prefer for the new protagonist? Playable background, but also fine with selectable background

Would you use a default face for your first playthrough? No, customizing is way too much fun for me

[Ambivalent]

In ME1 Normandy was a military vessel, so yeah, if they are on board they are supposed to integrate into command chain, even as mercs. They could leave because they aren't bound by contract, but they couldn't stay on Normandy and say "You are no boss to me, jerk".

 

 

They could leave or report to Anderson, council or Admiral Heckett maybe.

 

I mean Shephard wasn't the "iron fisted leader of the galaxy", there were choices that can make more sense than "You wanna do this bad action? Sure, let me close my eyes and forget about it in a few minutes."

 

What i meant was they lacked personality to stand against you/protest or leave even when at start. (Dragon Age was better in this for example)

 

And what happened to these people? Did it prevent these wars?

Being a jerk (in sense of being insensitive and rude) is way to build up authority among subordinates without creating emotional attachements. It's not best or only way, but it works in military.

 

They didn't have that much power. But they did choose not to participate in it. While tough guys played their war at front and lackeys supported them from away they knew they haven't got any fault in these. That was more than enough to satisfy someone anyway.

 

I'm not telling you're 100% wrong or i am 100% right but more options, consequences and "danger"/thrill needed in interactions with party members. That's all i'm saying. 

[Ambivalent]

Sometimes going Paragon is the wrong thing too. Jack and Grunt mock it often (depends a bit more with her). He thinks you're just interested in control and not his friend. And makes fun of that "human thing" you do. He's a little quicker to see Renegade as Battlemaster as well. While the Paragon will eventually "go out with a whimper".

 

I agree but it should have been even more.

 

I was not asking for paragon to be only way , i'm "grey" myself but i'd like to see more serious consequences for renegade and paragon backfiring more often.

 

Because while both are a few steps forward from regular "light/dark" side they still lack some "taste". Team members were well designed but somehow too easy to be your "puppet".

 

"I'll extinct the race of Rachnai!"

"I think it is wrong but well... See you at the ship *winks*"

 

or

 

"I think Rachnai should be allowed to live"

"So they can start another war? No way... But i'll catch you later in Crew Mess."

 

Bioware managed to do it right in DA:O though, i can't complain. What i'm asking is more.

 

Thinking as  whole i guess my favourite RP experience was Fallout New Vegas. Everyone was right and everyone was wrong. Talking about morality best choices had some "wrong parts" in the end while worst choices sometimes ended better. Nothing was crystal clear.

[CrutchCricket]

War Hero's boring. Who wants to play someone who is actually good at their job? I prefer surviving due to random circumstance or sending countless to their deaths in strategically unnessary blunders because I Did What I Had To Do

plus it helps my Shepard connect with the other squadmates who frequently tend to get everyone killed.

I don't think Torfan is meant to be considered a unnecessary blunder. The ruthless description sounds less like Zapp Brannigan and more like Colonel Jessop from A Few Good Men or Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now (minus the crazy, of course).

[Quarian Master Race]

I don't think Torfan is meant to be considered a unnecessary blunder. The ruthless description sounds less like Zapp Brannigan and more like Colonel Jessop from A Few Good Men or Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now (minus the crazy, of course).

Taken seriously, I'd agree, though I don't know about doing away with all the crazy unless there was a practical reason for executing the batarians that surrendered.

It was more referring to the opinion that any operation that boils down to a human wave attack and results in 75% of the unit becoming KIA as being a pretty poor strategy. I don't see why Torfan couldn't have just been conducted as a siege instead of going Leroy Jenkins. Of course, maybe they were short for time and it really was the only way, and Ruthless Shep is just the 22nd century's analouge to Georgiy Zhukov.

Zapp Brannigan comparisons were mostly a joke. That'd be more akin to Shepard massacring a commune of batarian pacifists then declaring a great victory.

[Vazgen]

Executing prisoners was touched upon in ME:Revelation, if I'm not mistaken. Something about having to move deeper into the complex and avoiding wasting squad members to guard and/or babysit surrendered batarians. 

[CrutchCricket]

Taken seriously, I'd agree, though I don't know about doing away with all the crazy unless there was a practical reason for executing the batarians that surrendered.

It was more referring to the opinion that any operation that boils down to a human wave attack and results in 75% of the unit becoming KIA as being a pretty poor strategy. I don't see why Torfan couldn't have just been conducted as a siege instead of going Leroy Jenkins. Of course, maybe they were short for time and it really was the only way, and Ruthless Shep is just the 22nd century's analouge to Georgiy Zhukov.

Zapp Brannigan comparisons were mostly a joke. That'd be more akin to Shepard massacring a commune of batarian pacifists then declaring a great victory.

Because ****'em, that's why.

 

The executions could've been meant as a warning/message or as Vazgen said, pure practicality of not leaving the enemy at your back.

 

I wouldn't mind getting more details on what went down on Torfan as long as they don't contradict what's already implied or indeed make it the result of some idiot Admiral somewhere. Although even that might be a worthy story, but I don't exactly trust them to get the nuances right. But since the ruthless background states Shepard is called "when failure isn't an option" I guess there were reasons why this was the only way.

 

I really like Major Kyle mission as part of this background. I like to imagine part of what broke him was how unbroken Shepard was after the whole thing. It drives the whole "this is fucked" point closer to home for him.

[CathyMe]

What gender was your Shepard?  Female

Who was your favourite romance?  Garrus

Which non-romance option do you wish had been available?  James, maybe Zaeed

Who were your favourite crew members (multiple choice)?  Garrus, Kasumi, Miranda, Tali, Zaeed, James

What was your Shepard's morality?  Renegon

What was your Shepard's ethnicity?  Asian (japanese to be more specific) but they still look rather white since the CC isn't good at this, or maybe that's just me

What was your ME3 ending choice?  EC Destroy (but currently using MEHEM)

What was your favourite background for Shepard?  Earthborn & War Hero ( I don't know why, but this combination gives of the "starting from the lowest position, and climbing the ranks through hard work" vibe, which I, personally, enjoy : )

What gender will you choose for your first playthrough of ME: Next?  Female

What moral system would you prefer? No moral system, if possible, but I'm open to ideas.

What type of romance options would you prefer (multiple choice)?  Depends on the character, not race.

What type of background would you prefer for the new protagonist? Playable background, but also fine with selectable background

Would you use a default face for your first playthrough? Customization FTW . Hope that ME4 is mod-friendly

[SwobyJ]

I think Renegade should have two things:

 

1)Don't just focus on cutting me off from things. Instead of going "Okay, you went Renegade, so you lose content.", instead try to have it more like "Okay, you went Renegade, now you get something new, a different approach and tone to things than otherwise would have happened if you were more passive and cooperative about matters." Some of these new things will be more difficult to deal with, while others will be easier.

Paragon should seem like its the good choice for things, and almost always seem like its the right path, except when you get the occasional wakeup call and notice that you've been screwing with things in a bad way/in a way that goes against your values as a player all along.

 

2)Renegade should appeal to player emotion better.

In ME1, it was just the wish to be a jerk. Okay, but that seems more optional of a path for most players in most situations so... yeah.

In ME2, it was the wish to be an anti-hero badass jerk. Okay, that gets a lot of people on board, but frankly, most players still prefer to be a more clear hero most of the time in most situations.

In ME3, it drove forward the supposed necessity to be a 'dictator' of things in order to actually be victorious against the Reapers. While damn brutal at times, it probably had Renegade the most played than ever. The incentive of 'necessity' over 'brutality' (as in you could be more brutal than ever, but the reason was more the 'necessity' for success). But, as we know, it seems that most of the Paragon options ended up having a better looking ending, as long as you're not something like super anti-Krogan or super anti-Geth, etc. And most aren't. So Renegade can still have this air of stupidity, that we know Shepard can do 'better'. I personally headcanon around this by imagining that ME3 is some Reaper dream realm so every Paragon choice/path is just a lie Shepard is 'telling' to himself in order to feel better about the real truth of things, but taking the story literally, Paragon overall is the way to go for great success, as long as you can stomach the factions involved with this great success (finally including the Reapers in Control)...

 

I think Renegade should try to care less about short term emotional adrenaline, and more about striking the prejudices that most people have. Instead of selling, for example, EDI+Joker with a tone of "Aw, they're just trying to figure out how to be happy together!" - instead of that, go for a more neutral portrayal that can more easily have the player go "Wait, this is ridiculous. There's some good reasons given to me for this, but no, its unnatural/bad/stupid/unhealthy/etc." Make us want to be the 'bad guy' against what others want, and like I said in #1, give us more uniqueness and new paths opened due to resisting the paths of others. 

I didn't like how, for example, we had to either kill the Geth or have them willingly join us. Why is it NOT an option to control them ourselves? Why is it NOT an option to truly regard the Geth as just tools that think they're 'real boys', and snap them finally back into place so they're operational for the war.

Bioware will tell us that we're so powerful and successful that we can broker peace between the Geth and Quarians, but we can't even control the Geth? That's actually a LESSER difficulty task! 

Take this example for all sorts of things. Bioware tends to just cut off visible outcomes with Renegade instead of illustrating how a Renegade can force and forge their own valid path. They rely on shock scenes of killing characters (which I accept as existing, I'm fine with them continuing) instead of letting the player go along and actually put their plan/ideology into practice. If I, say, sabotaged the Genophage with Wreav, it'd have been nice to get some visible outcome that the krogan are actually fighting harder than otherwise (Wrex), being fully welcome to unleash their brutality on the Reapers instead of using any energy on cooperating with Turians/etc.

 

Okay, I'll put it this way, on what I generally want to change:

-Paragon can be the better guy, but I don't want to feel it as much. I want to be more challenged on it. Instead, I'm almost always just validated about it. Heck, even when other characters admonish me, the story seems to carry a "Its okay, you did the correct thing and people will love you for it" tone regardless. I also want Paragon to go wrong sometimes, and Paragon opinions to be rather objectively ethical, but not necessarily the right thing to do in situations, and I want the story to have results about that.

-Renegade can be the worse guy, but I want to feel I'm being the better guy more when I go Renegade. I want to be less challenged on it, but that doesn't mean just having kickass pew pew action scenes, but instead a story that outright has it totally valid to take the Renegade position on matters (not just 'oh you're allowed to be a jerk/dictator/etc because dire circumstances and goals because Reapers'). Its more interesting to me when Renegade takes an opinion and actions that most of current humanity would emotionally sympathize with, instead of just being a violent anti-hero.

I'm not asking here for *all* characters to validate the Renegade, but I am wanting the characters *close* to the Renegade to more easily share his opinion, and for the story to carry more of a tone of securing safety for yourself and those close to you if you're Renegade, rather than being a relatively non-emotional sociopath/psychopath.

 

While the Control/Destroy depiction freaked out a lot of players who were used to feeling like Blue = What I'd Want To Do Anyway Because I'm Good, and Red = What I Don't Want To Do But Looks Badass, I think its a start to a good direction for the developers to take. Blue should stand more on higher ethics, and it should carry a legitimate and clearer danger of going wrong (not just "Tut tut, giving this character/faction a chance could go wrong, tut tut, carry on."). Red should stand more on relatable morality, and it should carry a message of doing a shorter term evil for the sake of ensuring greater evils (by one's emotional standpoint) cannot nearly as easily be done again.

 

Rant over.

 

I think this sort of thing could bring Renegade from 20-30%, to 40-(dare I say)50%. And I do think that equilibrium, while not being the same things with same effects, should be the goal.

 

EDIT: This is assuming that Paragon/Renegade returns in the next game (or gets renamed to nearly-equal labels). If, for example, a 3rd path gets added, then obviously 20-30% 'Renegade' would be entirely fair, as 20-30+% for the other 2 paths could also happen. Duh. Um, anyway.

[SwobyJ]

I don't think you can boost Renegade numbers much higher. A lot of Bioware fans are liberal and idealistic. They're bound to be Paragon-ish, or in fantasy games, pushing for the typical heroic stuff.

 

 

And that's a nice way of putting it. I'd rather call everyone a bunch of weenies.  Maybe that's still nice. I don't know.

 

I think Bioware could find a way. Could.

[SwobyJ]

I'm thinking in terms of 'Renegade/Red' being 'fighting for the familiar and close', instead of the more brutal 'killing people' emphasis of ME2 or whatever.

[SwobyJ]

I don't know if it's simply meant to be brutal. They're just supposed to be gags. Or at least, that's the Hollywood term for it. Action and horror movies are full of gags. It's a staple to have creative deaths. I don't really see it as good or bad. Just that Renegade is tapping into the Hollywood tradition. I don't know what Paragon is trying to be.

 

Sure, it certainly did that, and I think it can continue to. But it doesn't have to be emphasized so much. ME1 Renegade was even sold as a jerk. ME2 Renegade was even sold as a Hollywood anti-hero badass. ME3 Renegade was even sold as a ruthless fighter willing to dispose of others for the sake of the goal. The next Renegade (or new name to fit it) can be something attuned more to something else, as with every Bioware game change for roleplaying.

 

I think many more people would commit those relatively violent (physically or otherwise) 'Renegade' choices if it meant fighting for something they personally care more about, unlike just portraying a Shepard who cares more about himself. (This is also why I wonder about the idea of renaming Paragon and Renegade to be less self-oriented sounding.)

 

One (super vague and off the top of my head) possibility is the 'Renegade' = caring more about Milky Way and not giving in to new concepts of Andromeda's workings, and 'Paragon' = giving up elements of the Milky Way in order to cooperate more with Andromeda's workings. You're the 'selfish conservative' here, but you think you have very good reason to be, and a whole trilogy of fighting for it behind you on that. Just an example, I want to make clear.

[Helios969]

I don't think you can boost Renegade numbers much higher. A lot of Bioware fans are liberal and idealistic. They're bound to be Paragon-ish, or in fantasy games, pushing for the typical heroic stuff.

 

 

And that's a nice way of putting it. I'd rather call everyone a bunch of weenies.  Maybe that's still nice. I don't know.

So does that make you a meanie;)

[Helios969]

I'd really love to see are actual consequences to playing one way or the other.  Not every situation can be resolved through niceties or b*tchslapping.  I'd like to see both get taken advantage of or better yet actually have a companion bail cause they think your leadership style sucks...whatever that may be.

[SwobyJ]

I doubt certain people would like it if they didn't like it already.. Even when put in a context they truly care about.

 

There's an "automatic" gag in Arrival, for example. When you and Kenson are jetting from the prison, it lights a bunch of Batarians on fire. Classic action movie silliness. But some people moralize everything, like I said. They complained about this too, even though there's a sincere sense of urgency (Reaper storyline). They treat these games as landscapes for morality tales. They don't come from the action movie fan/tradition at all. 

 

In that sense, they're pretty unique among shooter fans. I don't know anything like it outside Bioware. And it's not going to change much, I think. 

 

Hahaha. 'Like it'? NO. People love their color code and adhering to it as they see it. Challenging on that gets backlash that Bioware would have to be prepared for.

 

But they still may pick Red more, and that's all I'm caring about here haha.

 

Keep in mind that while the devs (seemingly) and so many fans and a lot of more casual players lean more Paragon, there's actually a lot of silent Renegades in the casual audience. Bioware will always do things to appeal to them no matter the fan opinions.

 

I'm just saying that 'Red' can mean a lot of things. And already has at times, frankly. ME3 Shepard's 'Renegade' could be friggin disturbing, but it also could be encouraging others to be focused at the fight in front of them, to have each of them stand up for themselves and not need to rely on other outside factors (friendship, etc). That is arguably much better, even morally, than the Paragon alternative.

 

I'd like more of that in the next game/protagonist. The 'stand up for yourselves' aspect, that even many current-Paragon players could find appealing. Especially if there isn't a more monolithic enemy in our way (Reapers), there isn't the 'excuse' to be as blatantly anti-hero, but we could play with more grey morality, and an appeal to pick Red in order to stand up for the familiar, for home, for those already close to us, for irrational attachments and for avoiding *giving up* the old in favor of the new.