87 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Haunter]

The Renegade / Paragon meters are a hold over from BioWare's roots with DnD's (and by extension KotOR's) alignments. I remember back in ME1 the idea that R/P meters would fill up independently (so being more Renegade didn't make you less Paragon) was pretty nifty. However, over in DAO there were no meters at all! In ME your choices are saddled with this morality system, want to not kill the colonists on Feros? We'll give you Paragon points just for not being a murderous short-cut taker. In ME2 you have the opportunity to kill a piece of criminal scum (Fade/Harken), you cannot arrest him and the only option to bring a hardened criminal who did his best to kill you to justice results in Renegade points.

Sadly quite often Renegade = jackass, & Paragon = naive goody-two-shoes. On the other hand we have DAO where you can make any choice you want and not be saddled with a morality meter. Kill the elves? Ok, it will effect the story, but it doesn't make you evil or turn your eyes red. Work super hard to save Conner, his mother, and father? Doesn't make you a saint, it's just a choice that you use to define your character.

On the other side a lot of choices and dialogue in DA2 and DAI was delivered with less than stellar zeal because without a morality meter behind it your reasons for making a choice might not be so ruthless and so the Voice Actor is presumably told not to deliver the line in a ruthless, cold-blooded manner. So it certainly isn't a clear cut decision as to which is better.

 

So as you no doubt figured out by now I am fairly biased myself on this issue, but what do you all think? Is a morality meter something that you would like to see in ME:A, or is a feature you'd be happy with BioWare dropping in the next title?

 

I'd love to hear why you all prefer one way or another

[ArabianIGoggles]

I'd like to see it remain, but with a few tweaks.  The ME2 version was the worst IMO.  What I would like to see is the neutral option given some love. 

[Dalinne]

I'd like to see it remain, but with a few tweaks.  The ME2 version was the worst IMO.  What I would like to see is the neutral option given some love. 

 

Seriously though, I see your point but I've never felt constricted by this dichotomy. All my Shepards have a mix of paragon and renagade reputation (paragade, renegon). However, I middle ground is always well received (sometimes neutral responses are the most sane) and they could go a Hawke route and use the neutral responses for sarcasm.

 

Damn you, neutrals

[The Ascendant]

I agree that while it's nice in theory, in practice it seems narrow-minded and naive. I would prefer a more realistic way of determining our morals and ethics in Andromeda. Idealism vs pragmatism, security vs freedom, issues that impact and affect the real world, adding a more mature take on the game. Games like the Witcher for instance is a perfect example of how morally ambiguous decision making and the consequences of those decisions impact your game and setting. Telltale games are masters of this and I hope Bioware treats this with the maturity and seriousness that such issues bring up.

[10K]

I think they should get rid of the paragon and renegade meter. It had no purpose besides tracking your morality. I think the game itself should do that by having your teammates and people around you react to the choices you've made. The system was useless. Weather you were paragon of renegade didn't matter in the overall story, it just gave you access to certain dialogue and facial scars. They need to scrap it.

[Commander Rpg]

Yes. It doesn't apply to a game that wants to be brilliantly mature.

[Guanxii]

I've been says for years they should replace it with a faction reputation/loyalty system tied to a Speech skill tree (Paragon options on the top branch, 'renegade' options on the bottom branch). What this would mean in the context of Andromeada's settlements, for example;

 

Reputation: Krogan 51%, Asari 29%, Geth 33%, Quarians 45%, Batarians -15%, Humanity 50%, Salarians 34%.

 

Skill Tree:

Charm-based Barter or Intimidation-based Barter (lvl. 4)

Charm Interrupts or Intimidation Interrupts (lvl. 5)

Intelligence-based persuasion or Charisma-based persuasion speech options (lvl. 6)

 

Intelligence or rather logic based characters will level up faster gaining a general (multiplier) boost to XP, have additional speech options with and gain reputation faster with Geth, Salarian and Quarian characters and characters from other races of a logical persuasion who respond favorably to quick-witted, well reasoned arguments and rational (logic orientated) charm interrupts.

 

Charisma-based characters gain a general boost to reputation amongst all other factions through charisma speech mutipliers and gain additional romance speech options. Charisma-orientated characters can opt for charm or intimidation interrupts which work well together with different factions - for example, when dealing with Krogan characters renegade interrupts and general assertions of dominance (e.g. headbutts) with charisma-based speech multipliers could be a great way of making new friends and increasing your reputation while logic-based characters will have a harder time winning over the hearts and minds of Krogan townsfolk.

 

Completing quests for Krogan characters and helping Krogan settlements increases your reputation and standing amongst Krogan and enables you to unlock bigger and better quests for better unlocks (unique gear, weapons, abilities and perks) which require higher prerequisite trust/reputation in order to pass speech checks. When your affinity reaches higher and higher levels you gain more speech options with characters of said faction, NPCs respond increasingly favorably and you gain more favorable prices at Krogan merchants and they start offering rarer stock.

 

Conversely completing quests for Turian characters/settlements arouses suspicion and affects your reputation with Krogan and vice-versa. Having low to negative reputation with a faction will result in increasingly hostile NPC reactions, higher prices and lower quality wares at merchants. At negative reputation factions will raise bounties on you and send mercenaries after you. Completing quests for Batarian characters for example while the most profitable will negatively affect affinity with all other factions because Batarian quests will generally involve raiding/pillaging/sabotaging the other settlements. Undertaking dangerous bounties for each these factions (off-world) can slowly help to rebuild your reputation for those in negative standing (i.e. community service).

 

Faction reputation also applies to romance and loyalty. For example high reputation amongst Asari would be pretty handy if you are trying to romance an Asari crewmember, etc, while having a high reputation with Krogan will inspire high loyalty from Krogan squadmembers on the battlefield which will unlock companion perks but attract disloyalty from Turian squadmembers and vice versa.

 

As you can probably tell this system would be much more nuanced and provide a ton of replay value and potential for role-playing. It would have more in-game consequence and would be a more accurate reflection of the personality, preferences and experiences of our characters.

[Cyonan]

As I've mentioned in other threads, I much prefer the Dragon Age way of doing things because morality can't be expressed in terms of "good vs evil" or even "Paragon vs Renegade".

 

If one is going to insist that the meters stay, then I'd like to see it not linked to character dialogue options like it was in ME2 and to a lesser extent ME3. It's annoying and hampers any ability to RP when you feel like you have to pick a response just to build up the blue or red bars so you can solve conflicts later on.

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

The weirdest example to me of paragon/renegade is in ME3 when you are given a renegade option to shoot Udina whom you know to be aligned with Cerberus, has just shoved the Asari councilor, and is holding a gun and appears about to shoot her. And somehow this would be a renegade interrupt instead of a paragon one. It makes no sense. As if it is a renegade act to shoot someone purely in defense of yourself or someone else.

 

A  problem with doing any morality system is that the writers will structure issues in terms of their own morality and their own understanding of the practical effects of decisions. It is somewhat immersion breaking when I don't agree with those assumptions. Then I have to decide between making my blue bar taller or making my red one taller, even though I do not understand how my choice can be construed as a renegade one.

[wolfsite]

ME3's System is the best overall and would have no problem if they used that system.

 

-The game used your total combined point score for decisions

-Many decisions were neutral/grey area which allowed people more freedom and flexibility without worrying about getting the wrong points type.

-Even if you went all Paragon you could still make Renegade choices and vice versa making mixed characters much easier to play. (The only factor was if you had enough total points not high enough Paragon or Renegade)

 

[wolfsite]

The weirdest example to me of paragon/renegade is in ME3 when you are given a renegade option to shoot Udina whom you know to be aligned with Cerberus, has just shoved the Asari councilor, and is holding a gun and appears about to shoot her. And somehow this would be a renegade interrupt instead of a paragon one. It makes no sense. As if it is a renegade act to shoot someone purely in defense of yourself or someone else.

 

A  problem with doing any morality system is that the writers will structure issues in terms of their own morality and their own understanding of the practical effects of decisions. It is somewhat immersion breaking when I don't agree with those assumptions. Then I have to decide between making my blue bar taller or making my red one taller, even though I do not understand how my choice can be construed as a renegade one.

honestly Renegade is handled much better in ME3 than ME2 (In ME2 Renegades just came off as uncaring jackasses in a lot of choices) in ME3 it just seems more like Aggressive/Passive.  Do you take the shot at the risk of Udina shooting the councilor (it is possible for someone to fire a gun after they get hit by a bullet) or hold off and try to talk them out of it (I am basing this on a first time play that you don't know the VR survivor will just shoot him).

 

I'm just speculating on possible ways to look at the scenario but the scenario and seeing the bar as being about aggresive/passive choices rather than good/evil choices.

[themikefest]

The weirdest example to me of paragon/renegade is in ME3 when you are given a renegade option to shoot Udina whom you know to be aligned with Cerberus, has just shoved the Asari councilor, and is holding a gun and appears about to shoot her. And somehow this would be a renegade interrupt instead of a paragon one. It makes no sense. As if it is a renegade act to shoot someone purely in defense of yourself or someone else..

I agree about the interrupt, but not the result. I would've had Shepard shoot him in the arm or shoulder. I would interrogate him to know why he did what he did.

 

With regards to the interrupts in ME3, more, a lot more renegade interrupts were needed, especially ones that involved both violence and harsh language.

 

If they do get rid of the blue/red stuff, I would like to see it changed to what DA2 had or even DAI.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

I say just chuck it into the dust bin of history.

The P/R choices are illusionary as far as game story branch paths are concerned.  Did Shep's scar/no scar face influence the end game? Ditto for saving/not saving the settlers? 

 

 

 

 

[PlatonicWaffles]

Yes, it's outdated. I'd just replace it with an Influence meter with the races.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The worst part of how Paragon and Renegade were implemented (and there were several) was how it was tied to the "I WIN" button, this creating a perverse incentive to chase Paragon or Renegade points rather than roleplaying a coherent character.

The inconsistent or unclear definitions of Paragon and Renegade were also a serious problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

I say just chuck it into the dust bin of history.
The P/R choices are illusionary as far as game story branch paths are concerned. Did Shep's scar/no scar face influence the end game? Ditto for saving/not saving the settlers?

Are the branch paths all that matter? Is the end game all that matters?

[Fogg]

I prefer how Dragon Age II and Alpha Protocol handle it. With your dialogue choices you sculpt your character, which also can have consequences.

[Commander Rpg]

I prefer how Dragon Age II and Alpha Protocol handle it. With your dialogue choices you sculpt your character, which also can have consequences.

What are consequences if all you get is a thank in your face and a spank in your butt?

 

[Fogg]

What are consequences if all you get is a thank in your face and a spank in your butt?

 

 

Hehe, well! Dragon Age II had some cut scenes that were unlocked by being mostly 'aggressive' for example. Taking someone out instantly, while the 'funny' and 'noble' players had to talk someone out of a hostage situation. And the 'funny' guy could convince guards to let them in a warehouse, while that option wasn't given to 'aggressive' players.

 

So, tiny consequences. But I think faster, smaller consequences to your action make a better game than big consequences somewhere far at the end of a game that still has to be made, that will only disappoint.

[rocklikeafool]

The Renegade / Paragon meters are a hold over from BioWare's roots with DnD's (and by extension KotOR's) alignments. 

D&D alignments are much more complex than a simple Paragon/Renegade scale. There's a reason that the basic "lawful to chaotic, good to evil" alignments with 9 choices still FITS even in 5th Edition D&D (the latest version). It still works, and it has always worked. KOTOR alignments didn't fit the D&D alignment ideas at all.


That said, the Paragon/Renegade scale seems overly simplistic. There's only ever 3 choices: be good, be evil, or be neutral. None of the choices are very meaningful. Contrasting this to more robust systems, like D&D's alignment system...well, the D&D alignment system is going to win every time. Choices feel deeper, because the motivation for a chaotic good person to do something has more depth than "good guy does X".

A lawful good person, for instance, is unlikely to punch someone in the face; but a chaotic good person would punch Admiral Koris in the face every time. A chaotic evil person might try to actually kill Koris, which would probably negatively affect relations with Tali and with the Quarians and with Earth Command. A true neutral person would probably make some quip about how they almost died. A lawful evil person would probably hold Koris's actions over his head to gain personal advantage. 

I think you see my point. There's so many more options opened up with a more robust system like the D&D alignment system. Of course, we don't need a copy of that system. But it would be nice to have a system where there are more options than just "Be the good guy and grin", "Be the neutral guy and joke about it", or "Be the badass and hit something/someone".

[Commander Rpg]

D&D alignments are much more complex than a simple Paragon/Renegade scale.

They're as complex as they're twisted - in never being objective or objectively intended, nor fully neither partially - and more far from a real path of morals than a clean definiton based on: good, undecided, evil. Truly they become monothematic if the person guiding the narration has an infantile notion of behaving, or if she is really dumb and relies on stereotypes, both common and uncommon.

 

If the choices "paragon, neutral, renegade" have been meaningless it is not the partition's fault, but rather fault of who has utilised it.

[AlanC9]

No, it's not outdated. Alignment meters were always worthless.

[von uber]

How will I know what is good or bad if it is not colour coded for me?

[Sartoz]

Are the branch paths all that matter? Is the end game all that matters?

                                                                                     <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Good question.

I say. Yes, when you contrast it with minor side shows and time sinks, which is what I'm referring to. These add nothing to the experience and can be frustrating (DA:I is a perfect example of saddling the protagonist with menial tasks).

 

On the other hand, a well thought out game design that allows for the Game World to "experience" your actions within it and provides feedback (by overhearing NPC conversations or from newscasts) will shine a spotlight on you.... wouldn't it? Our dear hero's action will now be more thoughtful... we would be more engaged in the story... we have something to win or lose big or small.  In this case,  there is more to the game than branching paths and the end game.

 

Sadly, Andromeda is focused on exploration and the Mako and will saddle the Pathfinder with the task of finding "Elf Root".  To make matters worse, we may have to fight for useless blueprints.

[Elhanan]

I prefer the Influence mechanics that allow for greater RP freedom such as DAI and SWTOR, rather than the R/P extreme choices that have been used thus far. While these extreme choices are lessened in NG+ sessions, one should not have to get to a replay to make the best choices for a character, as opposed to the best choices to win Approval or mechanics.