376 réponses à ce sujet

[S.W.]

Throw out renegade/paragon as a scale and give us more than three dialogue choices when it suits. When you limit choices to a) king of the boy scouts, neutral, and c) a not-paragon option, you actually miss out on the variety of ways someone can be not-paragon, and end up with the inconsistency of the renegade character.

 

For instance, my paragade shep was super loyal to the alliance and pro-earth, stickler for the rules, and very formal. I often chose renegade options with companions which emphasised an authoritative approach to command which often pulled rank, and earth-first options when it came to race relations/the council.

 

What I ended up noticing is that renegade is a very complicated, multi-faceted character - sometimes it jumps between authoritarian (e.g. this is my ship and don't tell me what to do) and screw-the-rules very quickly, and I often feel it'd be more consistent to have more than three dialogue options for those situations. I also think earth-first options shouldn't be tied in with renegade either- also, I wish they'd been kept for ME2 in particular, given that you're with cerberus. I also love some of the badass renegade interupts in ME2 - kicking the mook out of the building, anyone? I'd want them to keep that element too.

 

Basically, there's lots of shades of not-paragon, from an authoritarian 'yessir!' commander to earth-first human supremacist to the screw-the-rules badass of ME2 to something closer to a moustache-twirling villain.

 

In terms of choices, I'd also like more difficult ones - think Balak in ME1. Or even the genophage ark in ME3 - there were reasons to support both sides, it's just a shame EMS was so easy to collect it was made essentially meaningless.

[SerriceIceDandy]

The problem with depicting morality is that it's too vastly complicated to convey accurately on a single scale. The current system is a bit flawed as if someone's used a basic concept of Freud's personality theory, but set the scale from Mother Theresa to Joseph Stalin. Paragon options were always ones that represent upholding our morals, and it was usually crystal clear that it was the benevolent option. However, have a hypothetical decision where you could save a squadmate/character with emotional attachment, but at the cost of the success of the mission. The paragon option would previously be 'Screw the mission, if we leave them to die we're no better than the reapers!!!! hurrrr let's save him/her/them!' When really, that would be a selfish decision in the grand scheme, making it renegade.

Renegade options were at their best when they embodied enforced pragmatism, but isn't necessarily the popular option:A good example is a small mission in ME2(?) were two missiles are launched at a human colony, but you can only stop one. Do you choose the Space-Christ option of saving the people, or do you pick the option that actually is more beneficial to the cause be saving the colony's economic centre.

And one thing Dragon Age has more often than not compared to Mass Effect - your companions/squadmates have more to say and even challenge you based on your actions, or weigh in on potential decisions. By ME3 the only people who'd really react to your decisions were Kaidan/Ashley & Tali, and even then only about certain hot topics. Everyone else would be the Eva Braun to you and your (potential) genocidal tendencies.

tl:dr Morality can be reverse scaled from objective vs subjective perspectives, and I think Bioware should play with that a bit more.

In addition: The renegade options, at least to me, always seemed to be slightly out of character for the 'neutral Shepard'. S/He would go from a fairly normal individual to emphatically detached in an instant. However, the transition towards paragon options seemed seamless - at least to me.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I'm not big on a morality spectrum, anyway. For starters, I often find myself at odds with the Bioware writers about where the lines are drawn. Too often, Paragon means a pollyannish assumption that everything in a galactic war will work out if we're nice enough. Bioware games certainly embody the moral relativism taking hold of western culture. Why on earth are they trying to cling to some strange morality continuum that's effectively meaningless in their own games?

[pdusen]

More evil. Borderline cackling-villain-evil.

[MrStoob]

In classic RPG terms: good, neutral, evil (and their lawful/chaotic derivatives) are the usual moral choices.

 

For ME1 and ME2 BW went for the extreme in their mechanics (for full benefit you really had to choose one or the other the majority of the time), with occasional choices to bully your way through a situation (various Rene interrupts and punches), and less often the choice to allow harm to come to innocents where they could have been spared (Zaeed loyalty for example).  I say 'extreme in the mechanics' because in the main, the choices themselves weren't really that extreme or didn't amount to much.

 

ME3 just muddied the waters for those of us who were already familiar with the existing system.  While yes, it gave the player the ability to be a badass when they felt it was warranted and a hero equally, it was contrary to the previous two titles.  Also, the manner in which the rene/para interrupts and options were handled were quite odd at times, such as the toast with the sqaddies in the bar.

 

The only time we saw a glimpse of 'Shepard the Conqueror' was at the end of ME1 with the pact with Udina if you let the council die, and that all went away far too quickly for my liking when they hit the reset button for ME2.

 

For future titles, without seeing more, hard to say, but basically more like ME1 (with interrupts) and less like ME3.

[BraveVesperia]

If there's a morality like 'renegade' again, then I want it to be the pragmatic choice (and therefore have actual positive consequences sometimes), even if it's ruthless (like sabotaging the genophage cure).

 

Mostly I'd like it to be consistent, instead of alternating between ruthless/pragmatic, selfish opportunist, pointless dickery, and whatever stupid option can't be attributed to paragon (recruiting an indoctrinated rachni, anyone?). Those could all be in the game, but not under the same morality. In fact, personality shouldn't even be linked to it. You could be charming and friendly, but completely heartless with your choices. That would be more interesting than "I'm renegade so I kick puppies. Watch me laugh about your dead wife story." On the flipside, you could be a complete jerk in conversations but a bleeding heart/idealist for the major choices.

 

I'd like all of this to come with major choices that are based on ideology/opinion anyway, not 'good guy' or 'bad guy' choices.

[PhroXenGold]

While I like the choices available to me, the mechanics of the system were utterly awful in the first two games - if you are going to put a morality meter in a game, it should never reward you for going to the extremes, simply because the vast vast majority of people aren't extremists. Most people will certainly lean towards one side or other, but they won't always stick to a particular alignment. They'll make their choices based on the situations they are in. Yet if you try to play as a realistic character in ME1 or 2, particularly the latter, you get punished by a system that rewards picking options based on their colour instead of actually roleplaying.

[Ahriman]

While I like the choices available to me, the mechanics of the system were utterly awful in the first two games - if you are going to put a morality meter in a game, it should never reward you for going to the extremes, simply because the vast vast majority of people aren't extremists. Most people will certainly lean towards one side or other, but they won't always stick to a particular alignment. They'll make their choices based on the situations they are in. Yet if you try to play as a realistic character in ME1 or 2, particularly the latter, you get punished by a system that rewards picking options based on their colour instead of actually roleplaying.

I agree with you except for the most people part. That's quite likely exactly what they do, if they want to play as "friendly" Shepard they just choose top option without even reading it (it often doesn't even give enough info to judge btw).

[PhroXenGold]

I agree with you except for the most people part. That's quite likely exactly what they do, if they want to play as "friendly" Shepard they just choose top option without even reading it (it often doesn't even give enough info to judge btw).

 

I meant most people's actual behaviour/attitudes, not what they do in games. Most real people aren't "pure paragon" or "pure renegade" (or "pure good"/"pure bad" or "pure LS"/"pure DS" or whatever other way you want to describe alignment in so much as there is such a thing).

[The Heretic of Time]

The renegade options in Andromeda I'm hoping are similar to ME2. In the second game some of those renegade options were pretty badass, but in the third game some of the options really made you feel evil. Part of the reason why I pretty much always pick paragon options in the third game.

 

I'm doing another playthrough of ME3 right now. My reputation bar is filled with 90% red and only 10% blue. I don't feel evil at all.

What exactly about renegade in ME3 do you think is evil?

Renegade was handled pretty well in ME3. In fact I'd say renegade in ME2 was handled the worst. Yes, renegade in ME2 was bad-ass sometimes, but often the renegade path in ME2 was an inconsistent mess. 

ME1 had the best renegade path, closely followed by ME3.

 

[General TSAR]

I want them to get rid of the morality meter in general.

Word. 

 

Dragon Age Origins did morally ambiguous choices so much better by not having a binary mechanic. 

[Agent69]

Hopefully the renegade option will be half as unconventionally moral as I am this time. If I wanted conventional morals pushed on me I would go to bible class. That said, I guess Mass Effect did have its moments but in the end it was all for the greater good. What about me and my needs? You can't be a true renegade without considering that.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I'm doing another playthrough of ME3 right now. My reputation bar is filled with 90% red and only 10% blue. I don't feel evil at all.

What exactly about renegade in ME3 do you think is evil?

Renegade was handled pretty well in ME3. In fact I'd say renegade in ME2 was handled the worst. Yes, renegade in ME2 was bad-ass sometimes, but often the renegade path in ME2 was an inconsistent mess. 

ME1 had the best renegade path, closely followed by ME3.

 

 

People think renegade is more evil because of how extreme some of the actions taken are.

 

What people forget is that most situations in ME3 are extreme situations, so it is obviusly that the actions commited by a "Whatever it takes" soldier would seem far darker than usual given that galactic extinction is on the line.

 

ME3 renegade was not evil, plain and simple.

[The Heretic of Time]

People think renegade is more evil because of how extreme some of the actions taken are.

 

What people forget is that most situations in ME3 are extreme situations, so it is obviusly that the actions commited by a "Whatever it takes" soldier would seem far darker than usual given that galactic extinction is on the line.

 

ME3 renegade was not evil, plain and simple.

 

Hell, I'd say Paragon is more evil in ME3.

Paragon Shepard commits actual genocide and drives one of his companions to suicide. I'm talking about the Rannoch arc here. If you don't have the conditions needed to broker peace between the quarians and geth, then you have to decide to either allow Legion to upload his reaper code, which leads to the extinction of the quarians and Tali's suicide, or stop Legion from uploading the code, which results in the destruction of the geth.

Allowing Legion to upload the code which leads to the extinction of the quarians and Tali's suicide is the paragon option in this case, believe it or not. And I'd say this option is far more evil than anything Renegade Shepard does in ME3.

[Agent69]

People think renegade is more evil because of how extreme some of the actions taken are.

 

What people forget is that most situations in ME3 are extreme situations, so it is obviusly that the actions commited by a "Whatever it takes" soldier would seem far darker than usual given that galactic extinction is on the line.

 

ME3 renegade was not evil, plain and simple.

 

Agreed. In ME3 you make tough choices but not necessarily evil or self serving choices. In KOTOR at the end you were able to make choices that served no one else in the galaxy but yourself and you were able to get goody two shoes Bastila to go along with it. There is something satisfying about that if you want to play the "evil" option.

[EmissaryofLies]

ME3's renegade felt like the natural conclusion to that particular Shepard. In the previous titles, Renegade Shep did some questionable and ruthless things, but ME3 dialed it up to 11, and it was fitting because this was our 'game seven', so to speak. She basically becomes another villain in the story if you choose certain options as Renegade. At times I found myself comparing this Shepard to Saren, and being surprised at how similar the characters were in the way that they got things done.

 

I really do hope that I can be as "evil" as ME3's Renegade Shepard in Andromeda.

[God]

Renegade options shouldn't be "evil" to begin with, they should be ruthless and pragmatic. 

 

Most people don't know how to define evil to begin with.

[Gothfather]

The "level" of Renegade should be in line with the story. And the story shouldn't be tailored to allow or disallow and specific "level" of Renegade. The story should be written for it's OWN merits.

 

But frankly i hate the paragon renegade system. Morality metres are childish. Morality isn't a metre and doing Z doesn't give you X or Y points. Actions have consequences in and of themselves they don't get pooled together into a mechanic that lets you magically create cost free victories like they did in ME.

[Fizzie Panda]

But in ME the renegade options weren't bad for the most part. They were ruthless perhaps, but overall, they were primarily a mix of serving the greater good (i.e. better than the paragon options) and taking no crap from people (especially in the form of telling authority figures to go **** themselves). In the ME2 and 3 at times they diverged from this, but ME did it very well for the most part.

True. It was all about the greater good- just how to go about it. Not necessarily evil. More like the end justifying the means vs. the means justifying the end.

[KaiserShep]

It isn't, allowing a bunch of ultra-violent man-turtles with contempt for the citadel races to multiply faster than rats is asinine. Especially since ME1 and 2 state that it's their violent nature that's killing them off, not the genophage, but apparently according to ME3, the holy saviors called Wrex and Eve are supposed to make everything wonderful forever and ever after it's cured(lol).

 

How supporting the Krogan is even "Paragon" to begin with baffles me to this day.

 

In fairness to this, regardless of what one thinks of the krogan, sabotaging the genophage is still the ruthless option, especially if both Wrex and Eve are alive, since that requires shooting Mordin in the back.

[Quarian Master Race]

Allowing Legion to upload the code which leads to the extinction of the quarians and Tali's suicide is the paragon option in this case, believe it or not. And I'd say this option is far more evil than anything Renegade Shepard does in ME3.

It's probably the only decision in the trilogy I'd argue as unequivocally evil due to the way it is presented. It is completely unnecessary. The only difference between the "paragon" option and the two persuasions that result in a ceasefire is that Shepard bothers to even do their job and get on the radio to relay to their quarian allies in orbit the extremely important new tactical information about the Geth re-uploading their upgrades and returning to full strength in the latter but not the former, thus betryaing and leading them right into the trap of what they have every reason to believe is a defeated enemy. Then s/he has the guile to try and shift blame with "they made their choice" after the fact. Paragon Shepard comes off as a genocidal psychopath in that scene.

[Broganisity]

I think we should add a second 'sub alignment' to our current two not to mention change our prior two:

- Paragon should stand by the mission and should be considered the 'by the book' option. But that doesn't mean simply following orders is a good idea. Don't expect your orders to always make the most sense.

- Renegade should go against the initial mission planned and could be conceived as the 'Loose Cannon' option. . .but just because it goes against your orders should not mean that it can't end up benefiting the mission in the end. In fact, it may be better. Renegade has some 'extreme jerk' moments, but is not the option for 'evil' choices of which there really shouldn't be any when we're, you know, playing as the hero. . .an ******* of a hero maybe, but a hero nonetheless.

---------------

Then, we split the sub-alignment into the following:

- Idealistic is about unity, faith in the goodness in others, and moral integrity. Being idealistic may inspire people but at the same time you may be seen as weak or naive not to mention being blinded by idealism makes it easy to ignore other possible outcomes.

- Pragmatic is about logic, truth, and moral flexibility. Being pragmatic may get you better results more consistently but at the same time you are not altogether inspiring if you tell someone they are 'most likely going to die on this mission'. But not everything can be decided based purely on logic; sometimes you just need to have faith in something, and faith isn't altogether logical. Pragmatic would have some 'evil' choices in it, but they are made because they have to be made rather than because 'muahahahaha this is the evil option'. Sacrifices have to be made and choices decided upon.
----------------

Thus, you can have characters who fall under nine rough categories depending on how 'by the book' they are and if they lean towards a more idealistic or Pragmatic attitude. You can have a 'By the Book' Paragon who will make hard choices or perhaps stand by what ideals they have and refuse that hard choice. . .or maybe your character is a Loose Cannon who makes up their own rules as they go along, but is idealistic and won't make hard choices that involve heavy sacrifices. . .or maybe they make those choices without a second thought because its the logical thing to do?

While it won't happen, I hope we get more 'personality notes' similar to Inquisitions when they tell you which is the 'humorous' 'emotional' 'angry' or 'distant' emotion. Mix that in as well please.
-------------

But in the end, What I really want most out of the decision system in Andromeda is this:

Interrupts that mean something but aren't required. ME3 dropped the ball on these things with its useless interrupts: Bro-ing it with Wrex, diving after Tali on a 'save Geth' choice, the interrupt on Kai Leng, and then with the 'Press Right Click to not get shot by the Illusive Man'. . .all of those don't do anything, except for that last one which gives you a nice game over if you don't do it (assuming you can't convince IM to suicide.). That was some quick-time fuckery. One of the only 'meaningful' interrupts in ME3 which I can remember was stopping Samara from committing suicide at the end of her mission. . .and of course, Shooting Mordin/Wiks in the back like the jerk you are.

Make the interrupts more like the one in Mordin's Loyalty Mission (or really, most interrupts in ME2) where you shoot the fuel tank beneath that Krogan Speaker. Where it has an immediate and action affect: Burn that annoying guy alive and make the fight that much easier

[Hazegurl]

Except this never properly happened in ME. You almost never paid for your paragon soft decision in the game.

I think this sums up the true issue with Paragon/Renegade.  The problem isn't that the morality options exists but that the devs don't treat them fairly.  Paragon becomes an instant "I win" and key to every piece of content in game while the Renegade path is almost always a loss in some way. If consequences and rewards existed for both then it would even the playing field. 

[God]

Hell, we can base the game off of Normative Ethics vs. Meta-Ethics:

 

Normative: Is it deontological or teleological? If it is teleological, is it utilitarianism, or is it virtue ethics?

 

Meta-ethics: Is it even moral or ethical in the first place? What is moral? What is good? What is right? 

[themikefest]

 Paragon Shepard comes off as a genocidal psychopath in that scene.

I would say it comes across as Tali or Raan not caring enough about their species to make any attempt to stop the upload