A full paragon meanwhile, could even let the Heretic geth live (objectively called a bad decision by Legion for the peace process) and still get the ceasefire and full quarian/geth support without much issue.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
No disrepect to you but I hope you were expressing yourself in an amateurish, bumbling way.
This fantasy game is a pseudo military action / RPG story. Good military commanders don't simply choose to waste their men, in order to achieve a personal outcome. That is a bad commander that wastes his men for personal gain. A good commander will spend his men to achieve an objective so that the sacrifices that they made will not go in vain.
I hope you understand the difference and attitude. Choosing to "kill", as you say, a squad mate to avoid a paragon choice is like viewing life as a commodity. Slavers have that view.
I feel like Morinth should have come back also for that scene, but have a slightly altered scene. Anything would be better than turning her into a banshee. They really needed for more renegade contents
Tali's jumping off the cliff was so heartbreaking. I would have preferred if they force us to choose instead of making a happy ending for everyone.
I was really hoping to get Morinth as a squadmate in ME3 or at least save her from being turned into a banshee. What BW did was lame, especially when you lose nothing as a Paragon.
"Good" decisions should, more often than not, require the player to sacrifice genuine personal (character) gain... for the sake of the gain of others (NPCs).
"Evil" decisions should, more often than not, allow the player to achieve greater personal (character) gain... while costing others (NPCs)
The idea that good or evil should be universally rewarded or punished is, of course, preposterous. The situations demands variety.
However, I want Bioware to make clear decisions on the outcomes of actions and not worry about whining little turds on the forums who think that even if one bad action is punished they're pandering to "goody goodies". It speaks to the type of people who play "evil" characters that they would whine... but it should not be pandered to.
That requires saving Admiral Koris rather than his men. I don't recall if that choice is associated with P/R points.
it's associated with a reputation check, not a paragon/ renegade decision. If you can't meet the check, Koris dies and you save the civilians no matter if you chose the paragon or renegade dialouge choice. Taking either persuasion option saves Koris and leaves the civilians to be killed by the geth.
Not saving Koris is objectively a bad decision because a large portion of the Civilian Fleet then tries to flee the conflict anyway and is killed by the geth, and you lose Koris's own small amount of war assets. Nevermind that it makes the ceasefire harder to achieve.
I was really hoping to get Morinth as a squadmate in ME3 or at least save her from being turned into a banshee. What BW did was lame, especially when you lose nothing as a Paragon.
You can have Morinth survive by recruiting Samara then not doing or intentionally failing the loyalty mission and allowing the former to escape. Morinth won't appear as a Banshee, and you may even get an ending slide with the two aiming guns at each other.
The idea that good or evil should be universally rewarded or punished is, of course, preposterous. The situations demands variety.
'Universally' is a strong word, but overall, this is a very ridiculous sentiment indicative of a very poor understanding of how stories function.
Why is it 'preposterous,' exactly?
@BabyPuncher: I believe I stated quite clearly in my next sentence why the suggestion is preposterous.
So, do enlighten me on "how stories function".
Because of 'variety'? That's your reasoning?
I never understood why it was renegade to shoot Falere in ME3. I mean, she's a dangerous entity and Shepard is only following the standard for potentially compromised situations and preventing Ardat-Yakishi escapes, which means that killing her should be entirely paragon.
But no, we're supposed to trust the Sci-Fi equivalent of a succubus in order to get more blue points, which is a renegade thing to do since you are going AGAINST the wishes of the Asari government and its policy of containing these individuals anyways.
You see, that's what I felt was terrible about the morality system. We moved away from following/breaking rules to GoodyTwoShoes/SadisticSociopath (good/evil).
Morality systems seem to be so hard to get to work, so why not scrap it entirely and let the player make decisions without the point gaming that players were plagued with playing as Shepard.
@BabyPuncher: No, because each situation must be taken on a case by case basis.
Saying "Bad people are pragmatic and understand that ruthlessness is going to win the war." is as childish as saying "If we only hope strong enough and think really good thoughts we'll win the day."
I went on to state that I want Bioware to do such... with each case, and decide without hesitation, the outcome without worrying about how gamers would take it.
The situation doesn't demand "grey" - it requires that Bioware commits to outcomes and not try to make everyone happy with sub-par outcomes.
I never understood why it was renegade to shoot Falere in ME3. I mean, she's a dangerous entity and Shepard is only following the standard for potentially compromised situations and preventing Ardat-Yakishi escapes, which means that killing her should be entirely paragon.
But no, we're supposed to trust the Sci-Fi equivalent of a succubus in order to get more blue points, which is a renegade thing to do since you are going AGAINST the wishes of the Asari government and its policy of containing these individuals anyways.
You see, that's what I felt was terrible about the morality system. We moved away from following/breaking rules to GoodyTwoShoes/SadisticSociopath (good/evil).
Morality systems seem to be so hard to get to work, so why not scrap it entirely and let the player make decisions without the point gaming that players were plagued with playing as Shepard.
The idealist Paragon trusts her word that she will behave and avoid capture so he spares her.
The ruthless Renegade thinks that the risk is too high ("You're too dangerous") and kills her rather than take the chance of another Morinth or giving the Reapers getting another Banshee.
@BabyPuncher: No, because each situation must be taken on a case by case basis.
Saying "Bad people are pragmatic and understand that ruthlessness is going to win the war." is as childish as saying "If we only hope strong enough and think really good thoughts we'll win the day."
I went on to state that I want Bioware to do such... with each case, and decide without hesitation, the outcome without worrying about how gamers would take it.
The situation doesn't demand "grey" - it requires that Bioware commits to outcomes and not try to make everyone happy with sub-par outcomes.
The story is saying neither of those things by having good or evil characters protagonists consistently succeed.
In the ME series, Paragon choices almost always lead to the best outcomes. Yet the series still features literally trillions of people - innocent people - being killed and tortured and whatnot. It still features Mordin, Thane, Legion, and many other side characters who are all good people dying no matter what. It still features countless soldiers getting gunned down or blown up.
These are all presented as good, innocent people who don't deserve to die. And yet, they all do. They lose. Trillions of them. What sort of warped lens are you looking through in which 'thinking good thoughts' leads to characters 'winning'?
Hey BobPuncher9000, care to explain how Paragon and Renegade alignments are like the Light and Dark sides of the Force again?
Hey BobPuncher9000, care to explain how Paragon and Renegade alignments are like the Light and Dark sides of the Force again?
I don't think I ever 'explained' that since it's not true.
Unless perhaps I might have said that the P/R morality system is like the Force in that it's an iconic feature of the ME universe?
The idealist Paragon trusts her word that she will behave and avoid capture so he spares her.
The ruthless Renegade thinks that the risk is too high ("You're too dangerous") and kills her rather than take the chance of another Morinth or giving the Reapers getting another Banshee.
But the Asari government says she's dangerous. Being as we're operating within their space, we should follow their preferences, that is, swift elimination to contain the entity.
Sparing her is against protocol, something a renegade would do.
I mean, it doesn't make that much of difference, since Falere is just an Asari.
Where does it say that paragon is idealist? Paragons are by the book, renegades bend the rules as per the original attempted morality of ME1.
Take for example indoctrinated Cerberus Troopers. They are absolute paragons, following any and all orders relayed to them. Garrus is a renegade, taking matters into his own hands outside the boundaries of proper legal action.
I don't think I ever 'explained' that since it's not true.
Unless perhaps I might have said that the P/R morality system is like the Force in that it's an iconic feature of the ME universe?
Negative, but it's interesting that you've changed your tune on that.
I haven't 'changed my tune' since I didn't say that.
If you claim I have, why don't you use the search function and track down the post and show it to me.
You can have Morinth survive by recruiting Samara then not doing or intentionally failing the loyalty mission and allowing the former to escape. Morinth won't appear as a Banshee, and you may even get an ending slide with the two aiming guns at each other.
I didn't know that, that sounds good but it's not the same is having Mornith on your team and then coming to the aid of a former squadmate. In that scenario, Shepard never met Morinth because he doesn't help Samara. So you end up with Samara not being loyal just to meta game Mornith living or facing off Samara later.
But the Asari government says she's dangerous. Being as we're operating within their space, we should follow their preferences, that is, swift elimination to contain the entity.
Sparing her is against protocol, something a renegade would do.
I mean, it doesn't make that much of difference, since Falere is just an Asari.
Where does it say that paragon is idealist? Paragons are by the book, renegades bend the rules as per the original attempted morality of ME1.
Take for example indoctrinated Cerberus Troopers. They are absolute paragons, following any and all orders relayed to them. Garrus is a renegade, taking matters into his own hands outside the boundaries of proper legal action.
Renegade is not just about disobeying orders or mindlessly doing the opposite of what's expected. Renegades typically go for the actions that guarantee results. Shooting Falere guarantees that she will not leave the monastery. Paragon choices are usually based on hope and faith. You have faith in Falere's convictions and trusts that she will not escape the monastery. That's a Paragon choice.
I want them to delete the whole concept of binary good/evil point systems or party approval/disapproval. Just let me pick what I want to pick and consequences be what they will.
Renegade is not just about disobeying orders or mindlessly doing the opposite of what's expected. Renegades typically go for the actions that guarantee results. Shooting Falere guarantees that she will not leave the monastery. Paragon choices are usually based on hope and faith. You have faith in Falere's convictions and trusts that she will not escape the monastery. That's a Paragon choice.
Not in the slightest.
Pretty much every 'Renegade' execution in the game is based upon the 'hope and faith' that nobody important becomes enraged and decides to take action.
Not curing the krogan? That's 'hope and faith' that the krogan don't bother to check if the cure is actually working, and 'hope and faith' that none of the other races decide not to work with Shepard if he's willing to break his word.
Or perhaps all the 'hope and faith' that the Council Races are going to smile and bow down obidiently when humans try to claim that they're the new rulers of the Citadel instead of promptly evicting humans from Citadel participation and facilities with their far superior fleets.
Or when innocent people are left to die, it's 'hope and faith' that nobody actually cares very much. That people don't decide to abandon their duties or preform poorly when it's clear their lives aren't worth all that much.
All of these things invariably succeed, of course. The player never gets penalized for 'hope and faith.'
Given what Renegade characters can do, I think the game sometimes treats them excessively kindly. You're (potentially) a racist murdering war criminal who constantly disrespects their superiors, but the consequences of this are all basically zero unless you screw over Wrex. Even the nicest companions reactions are barely more than "oh, I don't agree with everything you do but I think you're super awesome".
Paragons do also get away with too much - too often taking a risk doesn't feel like a risk, because you know the writers won't let you fail - but I don't feel it's quite so unreasonable, generally.
I think perhaps the sort of choices where the options are
PARAGON: Don't do nasty thing and have chance of worse thing happening
RENAGADE: Do nasty thing and not have worse thing happen
are not the ideal ones for this sort of story telling. Whichever outcome works out the best, it's going to feel arbitrary and wrong to some people. Particularly when they're military choices and Bioware's military logic tends to feel rather eccentric.
I'd rather have choices where the outcomes are different and fairly clear upfront, and the question is what outcome you prefer.
I faced no negative consequences for killing Wrex in ME1. Everything worked out just fine in the end actually.
That said, the biggest issue with Renegade vs Paragon is that there's no real difference between the two.There was no tangible divergent in the previous trilogy beyond some instances where you could avoid combat in ME1 and whom we get as a squadmate in 3 from the VS outcome. Any talk of "consequences" is moot if we end up getting a linear cover shooter where we go down the same corridors and kill the same enemies regardless of what we do or don't do.
The P/R system should be ditched altogether, the reason why light/dark side works in KOTOR (and star wars for that matter) is because they actually existence in the universe and play a significant role in the franchise. Paragon/renegade however is just way too arbitrary and simplistic in its approach to morality.
I faced no negative consequences for killing Wrex in ME1. Everything worked out just fine in the end actually.
That said, the biggest issue with Renegade vs Paragon is that there's no real difference between the two.There was no tangible divergent in the previous trilogy beyond some instances where you could avoid combat in ME1 and whom we get as a squadmate in 3 from the VS outcome. Any talk of "consequences" is moot if we end up getting a linear cover shooter where we go down the same corridors and kill the same enemies regardless of what we do or don't do.
Bioware really should just ditch the paragon/renegade dichotomy.
"ninja'd
I faced no negative consequences for killing Wrex in ME1. Everything worked out just fine in the end actually.
Retour en haut