100 réponses à ce sujet

[Memset]

What I'd like to see is a scenario where the goody-two-shoes character tries to use diplomacy but fails because it takes too long, the pragmatist succeeds at the cost of a life (or several) to save the many and an evil character makes things worse (to make a statement?) or twist the horrible situation to their own benefit.

 

I agree with this. I think the problem with the Paragon choices is that you're able to have your cake and eat it too. You can choose the moral high ground without suffering any setbacks or having to make any trade offs. There were a couple times where killing an enemy in a Renegade cutscene meant you didn't have to face him later in combat, but there really weren't any major shortcuts or benefits that I could think of which resulted from choosing a more "pragmatic", less idealized option. This often made Renegade decisions seem more petty and nasty than ruthless and efficient.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

so between liberals and conservatives, you want to be independent. That is the best comparison I could sum up. P.S. let's not talk about politics here. Just making a comparison.

 

There is more truth in that statement than you think. Most games that have a morality system of some kind in them do have some kind of a political dimension in them intended or not.

IMHO Fable 3 might be the most extreme example because the game states pretty bluntly that liberalism is good and conservationism is evil. While the Mass Effect Trilogy is not that extreme it is very easy to read/interpret a lot of political messages into all 3 games story and choices/decisions/consequences some blunt and others subtle (and the same is true with the Dragon Age series). Granted not every decision/choice/consequence is a political statement, (shoving the merc out of the window in ME2 or how you treat Conrad in all 3 games, etc) but stuff like deciding the fate of the Council, rachni, the geth heretics, and curing the krogan, siding with or against Cerberus, all do have some political under-currents or at the very least could be interpreted as political metaphors.

 

Real world politics and/or political metaphors have been in the Mass Effect games since the first game which IMHO is what the best sci-fi does.  

[Toasted Llama]

I concur, Renegade half the time made Shepard come across as a bigoted, selfish and untrustworthy jerk that his subordinates would probably have rather fragged than remain loyal to. Rather than being a ruthless, driven and coldly pragmatic individual, RenShep's choices were often petty and cruel, like someone who'd kick puppies for no other reason because it was fun or amused them.

 

Renegade should be more like James Bond (the Daniel Craig iteration in particular), a character that ticks all the boxes for being a psychopath, but is functional enough to have chosen a line of work that allows them to direct their more negative tendencies towards positive ends, making them the perfect "blunt instrument" to be sent to deal with problems.

 

Being Neutral should get us some kind of benefit as well. Perhaps a Neutral score would allow us a better chance to solve things diplomatically because we're seen as impartial, unbiased and realistic. The Neutral's way of thinking ("Let's solve this via compromise"), would be seen a better choice than Paragon's unfettered idealism ("Let's solve this via peace") and Renegades pure pragmatism ("Let's solve this via force").

 

Basically what I was trying to say but with better wording. I wanted some of my Shepards to be cold and ruthless but still effective and not causing unneccesary deaths, but paragon felt like "I love everyone and everyone should love everyone, lets make peace!" whilst using magical persuasion powers to make that utopia happen, while renegade felt like "I'm a douchebag just because I can."

 

so between liberals and conservatives, you want to be independent. That is the best comparison I could sum up. P.S. let's not talk about politics here. Just making a comparison.

 

Suddenly, politics. It's not that I want to be independent, I want what would be in your comparison the liberal/conservatives to be less black/white. Or maybe I'm not getting your comparison correctly...

[Pasquale1234]

The total paragon=good and renegade=evil is really, IMO, more a construct of the player base.

I think the words themselves - as well as the symbols and colors used to represent them - have quite a bit to do with that perception.

A quick lookup of the terms on dictionary.com shows the definitions as follows:

paragon -
1. a model or pattern of excellence or of a particular excellence: a paragon of virtue.
Synonyms: ideal, standard, epitome, quintessence; example, exemplar, paradigm.
2. someone of exceptional merit: Just who is this paragon whose name is on everyone's lips?
Synonyms: nonesuch, nonpareil

renegade -
1. a person who deserts a party or cause for another.
2. an apostate from a religious faith.

A lot of people also associate renegade with pragmatism, while a lot of renegade actions initiate violence, which is not entirely without risk. For that reason, it seems to me that resolving conflict via non-violent means may be a more practical choice in many situations.

[AlanC9]

The problem isn't so much that Renegade choices are pragmatic and violent, it's that they don't work on the renegade's own terms, since they typically get worse results than the supposedly idealistic choices do. This is a problem with Bio games in general.

[GeneralXIV]

I don't believe in evil. I could never stomach a renegade playthrough though. I just felt too mean x

[Sifr]

The problem isn't so much that Renegade choices are pragmatic and violent, it's that they don't work on the renegade's own terms, since they typically get worse results than the supposedly idealistic choices do. This is a problem with Bio games in general.

 

I think the Light Side choices for Sith characters in SWTOR are a good template for a Pragmatic Evil and Renegade-type character. While you can show mercy and let people go, most of the time the "good" choices for Sith characters tend to be orientated in service to their greater goals.

 

They're justify keeping prisoners to pump for information, rather than simply executing them. They'll show mercy as a means to generate good PR that can undermine the enemy's own harsh method. And if a plan to take down an enemy is extremely dangerous, they'll seek alternative means to infiltrate or destroy enemy strongholds, while suffering only minimal collateral damage to their side.

 

It's not that they won't kick the dog... but if doing it doesn't benefit them in any way, they don't see the point?

[Gannayev of Dreams]

I don't like a system where rewards are locked behind "point" accrual. Morality as currency is an oxymoron. I do like it when a game world keeps track of my choices behind the scenes and uses my reputation to craft NPC interactions, and I do like the option of conversation interrupts.

[Mcfly616]

 

Renegade should be more like James Bond (the Daniel Craig iteration in particular), a character that ticks all the boxes for being a psychopath, but is functional enough to have chosen a line of work that allows them to direct their more negative tendencies towards positive ends, making them the perfect "blunt instrument" to be sent to deal with problems.

 

 I was thinking more of Snake Plissken...

 

...but Craig's portrayal of Bond works, sure.

[Drone223]

I'd say just ditch the morality system altogether since its too arbitrary/simplistic and make people make choices based on their own judgement.

[fhs33721]

I agree with this. I think the problem with the Paragon choices is that you're able to have your cake and eat it too.

This is not just a problem with the Paragon choices. There are also a lot of Renegade choices that should result in some sort of negative consequences, but they never do. At worst you get a arbitrary number reduced from your war assests, which doesn't really hurt much. I mean, shooting a hostage? On the Citadel? Next to about 5 cops? While not having official Spectre status? And they just shrug it off? Now that's some having your cake and eating it too.

[Kaweebo]

I'll be honest, I think the Paragon/Renegade system needs to be removed. I'd prefer a system closer to DA, where your actions simply influence your companions, which leads to a wider variety of communication with them, instead of there being no repercussions and your racist Shepard who hated Liara in ME1 is forced to hug her when you reunite in the second game. 

 

I'd be okay if Charm and Intimidate were skills you could level up, but the way they went about it in ME2 and 3, where you only get Charm and Intimidate dialogue options if those specific meters goes up, greatly limits what we say and do and also renders the 'neutral' option completely pointless and I'm a big fan of neutral options in these games, especially if it's used as the go-to 'comedic' line ala DA:I. 

[Memset]

This is not just a problem with the Paragon choices. There are also a lot of Renegade choices that should result in some sort of negative consequences, but they never do. At worst you get a arbitrary number reduced from your war assests, which doesn't really hurt much. I mean, shooting a hostage? On the Citadel? Next to about 5 cops? While not having official Spectre status? And they just shrug it off? Now that's some having your cake and eating it too.

Completely right. I didn't mean to imply the issue isn't mirrored for both alignments.

[KirkyX]

I'll be honest, I think the Paragon/Renegade system needs to be removed. I'd prefer a system closer to DA, where your actions simply influence your companions, which leads to a wider variety of communication with them, instead of there being no repercussions and your racist Shepard who hated Liara in ME1 is forced to hug her when you reunite in the second game. 

 

I'd be okay if Charm and Intimidate were skills you could level up, but the way they went about it in ME2 and 3, where you only get Charm and Intimidate dialogue options if those specific meters goes up, greatly limits what we say and do and also renders the 'neutral' option completely pointless and I'm a big fan of neutral options in these games, especially if it's used as the go-to 'comedic' line ala DA:I. 

 

Sarky Hawke remains my favourite BioWare protagonist ever.

[wright1978]

For me neutral options were pretty essential to crafting my Sheps due to the paragon/renegade poles. Them being cut from ME3 was a big problem imo.

If the morality system is to return then they need to return and ideally without a meter approach that tries to stop roleplaying by inducing players to spam a certain side(colour) regardless of the individual decision. I'm not really a fan of renegade being evil for the sake of it. I much preferred Renegade when aggressive/pragmatic choices had a purpose

[Sanunes]

The thing about the Paragon and Renegade system is that people interpret it in different ways, in my opinion BioWare even implemented it in different ways with different meanings based on the feedback we were giving them which is a bad sign.  In Mass Effect 1 it was never good or evil for me, but more diplomacy and forceful so if there was a guard blocking a doorway that you should not go past you could ask someone to get out of the way or just push them out of the way.  Neither option was really good or evil because you shouldn't really be going that way, but in the approach you were taking for the same objective.  The other problem BioWare made was tying content to it so you were basically locked into taking one path or the other because you would want to see all the content during the game.

 

As far as Andromeda, I really want to see something different then what BioWare has done in the past with Mass Effect for I found the old system to be more of a system that is inconsistent and full of extremes while needing a more nuanced approach.

[In Exile]

The problem isn't so much that Renegade choices are pragmatic and violent, it's that they don't work on the renegade's own terms, since they typically get worse results than the supposedly idealistic choices do. This is a problem with Bio games in general.

But that's also because many of the choices are insane. It's very hard to pick out a renegade choice that's genuinely pragmatic AND expressed in a way that it's psychotic or racist.

[UpUpAway]

I think the words themselves - as well as the symbols and colors used to represent them - have quite a bit to do with that perception.

A quick lookup of the terms on dictionary.com shows the definitions as follows:

paragon -
1. a model or pattern of excellence or of a particular excellence: a paragon of virtue.
Synonyms: ideal, standard, epitome, quintessence; example, exemplar, paradigm.
2. someone of exceptional merit: Just who is this paragon whose name is on everyone's lips?
Synonyms: nonesuch, nonpareil

renegade -
1. a person who deserts a party or cause for another.
2. an apostate from a religious faith.

A lot of people also associate renegade with pragmatism, while a lot of renegade actions initiate violence, which is not entirely without risk. For that reason, it seems to me that resolving conflict via non-violent means may be a more practical choice in many situations.

 

In many cases, there were neutral options available that the pragmatist could choose instead... but then people tended to get hung up on not being able to resolve the conflicts in one statement even when losing the loyalty of one or the other squad mates was not that critical to keeping that disloyal squad mate alive during the SM.  I agree, Bioware's presentation of the P/R system triggered this... but in ME1 it was terms "charm" and "intimidate" and people themselves still drew the "good" Shep vs. "evil" Shep references (just watch some of the vids).  There is a LOT more room to play around within the P/R system than people generally give it credit for.  You CAN play Sheps with more variations in their philosophy and personality that "paragon" and "renegade" and still get through the game just fine; and it can be surprising the different ways the player can "feel" about different things in the playthrough... if they make the effort to step away from this "good" vs. "evil" trap they've put themselves in and "risk" constructing Sheps of different mixes of P/R AND neutral dialogues.

 

With the "reputation" system, the game still counts and does checks... it has to or else the game could not construct any differing consequences for choices later on.  RPG players WANT consequences for actions so removing any kind of way for the game to keep track... well, I can't see how it could work.  Putting it in the background is fine... maybe better... but all one really needs to do in ME is stop looking at the P/R bars to accomplish the same thing.  Having a visual of the "count" of some kind can help "metagamers" though.  Calling it a "reputation system" just puts the same wolf in sheep's clothing.  Yes, the P/R system in ME can be improved upon... a lot.  Reputation systems can be improved upon a lot... That has to do with how each dilemma in the game is set up (moral or otherwise) - that is, things like writing better dialogue overall rather than just changing how the system counts things.

 

Whether the public is going to stop associating "good" and "evil" with any of them is... unlikely, IMO.

[KirkyX]

But that's also because many of the choices are insane. It's very hard to pick out a renegade choice that's genuinely pragmatic AND expressed in a way that it's psychotic or racist.

The Bond one-liners can have this affect on some of the more pragmatic Renegade interrupts, though, awesome as they are. Stabbing that mechanic in the back, 'You're working too hard', pushing that merc through the window, 'What do you want me to say?' *push* "How about, 'goodbye'?" It's all at least mildly psycho.

 

I'm playing a sort of 'angry Paragon' Shepard right now - she'll die before she sacrifices an innocent life (Arrival et all aside), and always offers a second chance, but that doesn't mean she won't insult, belittle or threaten you if you ****** her off - and it's made me more aware than ever of just how much the Paragon/Renegade system changed between ME1 and ME2.

 

In ME1, threatening to break Harrot's legs if he didn't stop bullying Ken would've been a Renegade option, no question, as would grabbing that C-Sec officer to take him to task for profiling Lin'Vael. In ME2, they're both Paragon, while the Renegade options have you support Harrot and the C-Sec/Volus, respectively. It's kinda... In ME1, Paragon and Renegade was more about attitude, with the actual moral decisions kept separate - you'd pick which side you wanted to support, and then P/R would determine whether you were diplomatic or aggressive - whereas in ME2, they're more about taking different moral stances, though there are exceptions to these rules in both games.

 

It's... A pretty confusing system, all in all, especially if you're trying to roleplay actual character traits, rather than straight Paragon or Renegade.

[Laughing_Man]

The Bond one-liners can have this affect on some of the more pragmatic Renegade interrupts, though, awesome as they are. Stabbing that mechanic in the back, 'You're working too hard', pushing that merc through the window, 'What do you want me to say?' *push* "How about, 'goodbye'?" It's all at least mildly psycho.

 

Yes, but unfortunately not even close to the elegance of Bond... It comes off more like a raging psycho than an efficient psycho.

[KirkyX]

Yes, but unfortunately not even close to the elegance of Bond... It comes off more like a raging psycho than an efficient psycho.

 

I dunno, I feel like Jennifer Hale's delivery tended more towards 'Bond-style' efficient crazy than straight-up 'raging psycho'. That said, neither really fits the Shepard I'm trying to play at the mo, sadly, even though she'd totally push the merc though the window. The mechanic, not so much, since there's no way to give him another option.

[Pasquale1234]

In many cases, there were neutral options available that the pragmatist could choose instead... but then people tended to get hung up on not being able to resolve the conflicts in one statement even when losing the loyalty of one or the other squad mates was not that critical to keeping that disloyal squad mate alive during the SM.

It wasn't just the Jack-Miranda or Tali-Legion squabbles, though. There were quite a few places in the game where options were grayed out if you hadn't accumulated enough P/R points to unlock them.
 

I agree, Bioware's presentation of the P/R system triggered this... but in ME1 it was terms "charm" and "intimidate" and people themselves still drew the "good" Shep vs. "evil" Shep references (just watch some of the vids).

Sure, but all of the other associations were still in place. Paragon point accumulation unlocked Charm skills while Renegade point accumulation unlocked Intimidate skills. Paragon is represented by blue angel wings. If Bioware did not intend players to make those associations, then they should have used different terminology and symbology.
 

With the "reputation" system, the game still counts and does checks... it has to or else the game could not construct any differing consequences for choices later on.  RPG players WANT consequences for actions so removing any kind of way for the game to keep track... well, I can't see how it could work.

But is the restriction of dialogue wheel options and/or interrupts a desirable consequence?

ME3's reputation system has some similarities with DA:O's Coercion mechanic, in that they both build influence that can be used for persuasion / diplomacy / charm OR intimidation / force.

That may be the better solution. It allows players to feel like their choices and activities are progressively building skills, while not restricting them from any particular approach to problems.

[Laughing_Man]

I dunno, I feel like Jennifer Hale's delivery tended more towards 'Bond-style' efficient crazy than straight-up 'raging psycho'. That said, neither really fits the Shepard I'm trying to play at the mo, sadly, even though she'd totally push the merc though the window. The mechanic, not so much, since there's no way to give him another option.

 

Yeah, she's probably better than dude!shep.

[vbibbi]

The problem there is that actions aren't construed consistently across populations. Generally hero-liking people aren't going to like heroic actions if they benefit people they hate.

 

For a sci-fi game, where morality is almost guaranteed to differ across species from different planets, boiling down our actions to a one dimensional axis just isn't going to work.

 

True, but every individual is going to base their actions in the society they identify with. We're not speaking of universal morality or reputation, as that's impossible. We're talking about the reputation of the PC related to the people they are trying to help.

 

I'd say just ditch the morality system altogether since its too arbitrary/simplistic and make people make choices based on their own judgement.

 

Yes, DAI did a good job of making major decisions less about morality and more about morally neutral choices which were based on possible consequences. There weren't many variations in consequences, which can be improved upon, but at least it wasn't about choosing whether to save the puppy orphanage from burning to the ground or help pour the gasoline onto the fire.

 

This would need to be reimagined for ME, though, because a lot of the consequences in DAI were companion approval/disapproval, while ME has never worried about that.

[UpUpAway]

It wasn't just the Jack-Miranda or Tali-Legion squabbles, though. There were quite a few places in the game where options were grayed out if you hadn't accumulated enough P/R points to unlock them.
 

Sure, but all of the other associations were still in place. Paragon point accumulation unlocked Charm skills while Renegade point accumulation unlocked Intimidate skills. Paragon is represented by blue angel wings. If Bioware did not intend players to make those associations, then they should have used different terminology and symbology.
 

But is the restriction of dialogue wheel options and/or interrupts a desirable consequence?

ME3's reputation system has some similarities with DA:O's Coercion mechanic, in that they both build influence that can be used for persuasion / diplomacy / charm OR intimidation / force.

That may be the better solution. It allows players to feel like their choices and activities are progressively building skills, while not restricting them from any particular approach to problems.

 

If all consequences in the game were "desirable," they would not really be consequences at all, would they?  If only desirable consequences are what people want out of an RPG, then the writer is not going to be able to write anything but a "heroic" Mary Sue who every NPC panders to 100% of the time - which is something that people here emphatically say they don't want.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a dimension of PC that is less persuasive (IRL, not everyone is as persuasive as everyone else)... and the P/R system in ME2 allows me to play that sort of character... with some minor "negative" consequences but not so severe that I can't get through the game when creating that sort of character.  People might also want to create a "raging psycho" Shep with very negative consequences in the game.  As mentioned before, they might want to arrange that a specific NPC dies at the end of the game (without forfeiting doing that player's loyalty mission to get there).

 

You can change the system to seemingly count whatever... but in the end, it's going to be some sort of mathematical accumulation of "points" that is going to be how the game determines the consequences of a specific path taken by the player... unless you just allow the player to "select" the action AND the consequences individually.  The issue then is that the platform is limited by how many cinematics the developers can afford to put into the game to reflect all the possible consequences the players might want to select for themselves for every possible different dialogue choice they make in the game.... Equals, no doubt, a very expensive game that would take up a massive amount of computer resources to load... and probably still bankrupt the developer in the process. 

 

There was nothing wrong with the way that the P/R system in ME2 was constructed to count and test an accumulation of actions within the game.  Call it by different labels if you wish... I'm personally not hung up on that part of it.