103 réponses à ce sujet

[John Forseti]

The collector station is an allusion to the concentration camps of WWII. There were marvelous break-throughs in science and medicine, but at the price of torture and murder. All the findings were scrapped because it wasn't worth the price. Doing the good thing doesn't always help, that is why it is considered the harder path.

I think theres an element of that, but it's still significantly different. The findings of some of the japanese and na-zi medical experiments gave tangible benefits and increased knowledge and I'm sure any such findings were kept to allow those killed and tortured to have atleast some meaning to their sacrifices. So far so good, but what you have here is mostly medical stuff that is used to help people, in mass effect you have Reaper technology, weapons tech, mind control etc. which has not only so far brainwashed, converted or killed anyone who tries to use it but who you're giving it to isn't a load of doctors etc, it's basically closet-hitler.

As much as I hated to dissapoint the voice of Martin Sheen, there doesn't seem to be much point having humanity save the Galaxy from the reapers only to become them and resume the cycles.

EDIT: Who the giant undulating pennis designed this forum's word filter?

Modifié par John Forseti, 04 février 2010 - 01:56 .

[Mr.Skar]

Khavos wrote...

Mr.Skar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Seriously. I love it how people call for negative consequences to paragon actions, but freak out if you suggest that the anti-social, genocidal bullying that Renegade Sheps enjoy might have any negatives.

If you want realistic consequences then ask for them for BOTH ethincal paths.

I agree. If there are gonna be dire consequences for our decisions come ME3, both sides better have them.

There won't be.  There will be conversational and background environmental consequences, just like in ME2. 

I can hope though right? I do agree with you, but I really hope the choices make a real difference. And not the "I wish I had let the Council die" kind of difference (from the pure paragon perception).

[Pauravi]

Default137 wrote...

In ME1, if you save the Council, you did so at the cost of oh lets say, 7 million human lives, you also practicially destroyed one of humanities main fleets, and it would probably take anywhere from 5-6 years to fix all that up, all for the sake of saving 4 people. That never came back, and judging by how Bioware handled its previous games, it never will, that loss of life and loss of a fleet at most will get a minor mention in ME3, but they'll have magically fixed any potentiol consequence it might have had, because apparently being good is more important then realistic scenarios.

I dunno about that.  They do talk about the loss of life that it caused, but the numbers you're spouting are neither realistic nor true.  First of all, it didn't cost anywhere close to 7 million human lives.  7 million is more than half the population of the entire Citadel.  They actually say what the casualty figures were I believe, and it was in the thousands.  They lost, what, 12 ships or something?  Shepard rattles them all off in the reporter interview if you choose the Paragon dialogue.  The news reports if you saved the council also note that there has been a massive outpouring of goodwill for humans from the other races because of the Human sacrifice -- a perfectly logical consequence.  I also think that it is perfectly logical that other races could help the Alliance rebuild and recover afterwards, since we form an important part of the Citadel Defense force now.
The other assumption you make is that the Renegade choice is actually the more realistically beneficial one, and I don't think that's true either.  Saving the Ascention, to me, wasn't just about saving the council -- the Ascention has a crew of like 10,000 people, AND it is a huge flagship that had the potential to be an extremely powerful asset in the battle.  I think that many times the Paragon option IS the best way to help the most people.

And thats kind of what I'm getting at here, there is no consequence for being good in Bioware games, you just threw away an entire fleet for no reason? Aww, don't worry, you won't have to see how the weakened Alliance fleet will be unable to protect its border colonies during the full out Reaper attack, and billons will die because of your idealism, because in your perfect Paragon world, bad things don't happen!

I don't see why you think that this is a realistic consequence of the Paragon option.
In any case, nobody knows how the previous choices are going to play out in the battle against the Reapers because we haven't gotten there yet.  You can't complain about the lack of consequences for actions when we haven't even gotten to the consequences stage yet.
One scenario in which the Paragon option may very well backfire is in the situation with the Krogan.  I thought long and hard about this one, and my normally Paragon character took the Renegade option there, agreeing with Mordin's decision about the genophage.  Curing it may bring valuable numbers in the fight against the Reapers, and it may be compassionate to end the Krogan's plight, but it may also have terrible consequences later on.

As someone who normally plays very Paragon, I ended with about 1/3rd of my Renegade bar full.  To me, that indicates that Bioware has done a very good job of seeing to it that both options are viable and defensible.

[yam123]

I think the main problem with big renegade choices are you always act like a dick when you make them, or get treated like you are. When you decide to let the council die everyone ignores your reasoning and instead acts like you're a xenophobic biggot who killed them... Renegade should have been choices that favour end over means and actually reflect that, instead most of them just paint you as a selfish jerk at best and a dumb thug at worst. Seems to me like renegade Garrus is what renegade Shep should be like instead of a dumb jerkface. Garrus actually wants to help people he's just ruthless against those who cross him or hurt others. Shep is a dick to everyone even the ones he's "protecting".

With some of the smaller decisions I think they actually did this well, like how you deal with the looters or how you get the blue suns trooper to call off his buddies on korlus, but with the big ones it seems they it always falls back to you're either a jerk or you're nice. I did think they're getting better in ME2 though, the genophage renegade options were good example I think. You also don't act like a racist whenever you choose renegade options with aliens. Heres to hoping ME3 perfects it then.

Modifié par yam123, 04 février 2010 - 02:02 .

[ReubenLiew]

They lost 8 ships, and roughly 2400 men, all who are soldiers.

[mcvxiii]

Because if there were true negative conquences the die hard paragons would run riot all over this forum. There have been many true blue paragon types posting how much they didn't like the rather bleakness of this game. On top of that if one of their good deeds had negative conquences,why their heads would explode. Some people like the black and white, the good and bad and never shall they meet. The is no grey area and every good deed is rewarded. I guess it is because that is so unlike the real world so it is disirable for some that it exists somewhere, even if it is a fictional world in a game.

Modifié par mcvxiii, 04 février 2010 - 02:10 .

[keginkc]

I died at the end of Dragon Age because I refused to allow Morrigan to do her thing and refused to let a friend die in my place.



I think I'd call that a negative. For me, personally. Although the world was saved. At least I hope it was. Or I died for naught.

[DarthCaine]

keginkc wrote...

I died at the end of Dragon Age because I refused to allow Morrigan to do her thing and refused to let a friend die in my place.

I think I'd call that a negative. For me, personally. Although the world was saved. At least I hope it was. Or I died for naught.

Except there is an ending where Alistair is king, you live, don't take Morrigan's offer and Loghain sacrifices himself
Everybody wins

Modifié par DarthCaine, 04 février 2010 - 02:18 .

[xdaimyox]

I wish the game worked exactly as I think real life does, and not the way the developers feel it would. I wish that my ideas about what were reasonable, which are obviously the only correct assertions on this matter, were the ones that were implemented in this game.



.... really?



ok. Couldn't even get past the first page of this thread, there's really too much of this crybabying on these forums.

[xdaimyox]

For the record i play hardline paragon but i still am given to occasional acts of bravado and guile, i typically end a playthrough with a small degree of renegade mixed into my alignment. I've played both games back and forth renegade+paragon and honestly, many paragon choices are not all sunshine and rainbows. Many renegade options offer tangible benefits (particularly renegade interrupts such as the gunship mechanic on Omega, or the Krogan door guards in Tuchanka.

Pure paragon denies you any hope of Zaeed's loyalty.



Nothing is stopping you from making primarily renegade (or paragon) choices, but stopping to really think about the outcomes of particular choices. Saving the collector base could be important and useful, it could also be a horrible mistake for several reasons. Destroying it results in a verbal tonguelashing from TIM the likes of which even Udina would shy away from. Hell, by taking a renegade stance with the council and paragon stance with TIM it's possible to alienate yourself from both cerberus and the council in ME2. The world is not so black and white as you believe, for renegades and paragons alike. Wishing won't make it so, either.

[Eclesis]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

I don't.

It's a game. I want to be rewarded good things for being the 'good guy'. If I wanted to get screwed over just for doing something nice; I'd go outside.

Someone give this man a prize.

If "trying to be nice" randomly screwed you over it would invalidate the entire idea of "choice". The choice the player is making is what they want their game experience to be - you want to run around punching people in the face, you do that. You want to save orphans and help old ladies cross the street, you can do that too. If it was "you tried to do X but got result Y" you may as well make people roll a d20 to decide the results of every encounter. Would the Renegade choice be acceptable if, every time you tried to kill somebody by throwing them out a window, you find out later that instead it made them land safely in a heap of money?

Your choice is the paradigm of the game environment and experience - you're a Renegade, you live in a grim, dark galaxy where might makes right and you did what you had to do. You're a Paragon, you live in a world where happy floofy bunnies save the day or something. Each person's game experience is different because of it, why do you care what happens in somebody else's game?

By all means, add in bonuses for Renegade actions, but punishing Paragon players by basically warping their intent renders the entire system pointless.

[holidayc]

Eclesis wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

I don't.

It's a game. I want to be rewarded good things for being the 'good guy'. If I wanted to get screwed over just for doing something nice; I'd go outside.

Someone give this man a prize.

If "trying to be nice" randomly screwed you over it would invalidate the entire idea of "choice". The choice the player is making is what they want their game experience to be - you want to run around punching people in the face, you do that. You want to save orphans and help old ladies cross the street, you can do that too. If it was "you tried to do X but got result Y" you may as well make people roll a d20 to decide the results of every encounter. Would the Renegade choice be acceptable if, every time you tried to kill somebody by throwing them out a window, you find out later that instead it made them land safely in a heap of money?

Your choice is the paradigm of the game environment and experience - you're a Renegade, you live in a grim, dark galaxy where might makes right and you did what you had to do. You're a Paragon, you live in a world where happy floofy bunnies save the day or something. Each person's game experience is different because of it, why do you care what happens in somebody else's game?

By all means, add in bonuses for Renegade actions, but punishing Paragon players by basically warping their intent renders the entire system pointless.

You entirely missed the point of Mass Effect 2, to make decisions difficult.

As it stands the paragon blue option pretty much means save the galaxy and use idealism to achive idealism. there is no choice there because there is no wrong answer with paragon.

Once again, you wholly and entirely missed the point of ME2.

[Lethys1]

DarthCaine wrote...

BioWare should take cues from The Witcher

QFT!!!

How is The Witcher's morality, decision making and just general alignment system so much better than a game with the budget and writing staff of most Hollywood movies?

This was definitely the main strength of The Witcher, that both choices usually had some sort of consequence like in REAL LIFE.  Renegade shouldn't equal wrong.  They need to create more quests or missions with decisions that are not so clear cut.

Obviously blowing up the base was gonna be considered the correct decision.

[Lethys1]

And yeah, screw the council. They do nothing but fight, which is exactly what the reapers designed the Citadel and Mass Effect Drive for.

[Fulgrim88]

I completely agree with you and really approve of this thread.
It's been one of my major points while arguing in another thread (namely the one about the decision wether to keep the base or not).

I won't repeat my arguments here; However, the main point was that in this case the Paragon choice is bound to have some severe downsides. And i'd be incredibly disappointed if it ends up as a win/win anyway, just because people playing Paragon usually want it that way.
Theres just no point in making unpopular decisions (i.e. the end justifies the means) if the end turns out to be even worse than with the easy, popular choice

MagicianCamille wrote...

Yeah because, in real life,
there are no advantages to being likable and polite to people. And
there are certainly no disadvantages to being a rude ass to everyone
either. "Burning bridges" just means literally burning bridges, it's
not a sociological phrase at all.

It's not like most Renegades play Renegade because they enjoy being an ***hole.
They play it because they believe in the big picture, and that decisions that seem unpopular at first, will turn out better in the end (pretty much like it's in the real world). Blowing up the base might get you a ton of reputation from your crew, as it should be, but it should also bite you in the back once you need that tech in ME3.

Sadly, because of people who want good to turn out good no matter how realistic, it won't be that way

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 04 février 2010 - 09:57 .

[Collider]

Actually, I think ME2 did better on this. There were consequences for both paragon and renegade. I don't remember much specifics, but let's see

a) You end the romance with Tali upon choosing the paragon option.

2) Zaeed isn't loyal unless you let him kill his enemy, thereby sacrificing those slaves.

c) Probably other stuff I can't remember.

[Tandemir]

Boo hoo hoo! I played the game like a sociopath and had to face the consequences. I think to make it fair, everyone who plays a real hero should be forced to face really bad consequences too...





/sarcasm





You want Paragon choices to have severe consequences? Seriously?

[Massadonious1]

Paragons will get the Rachni from ME1, Legion's version of the Geth (I base this on where the decisions are placed on the diaologue wheel), and presumably the Quarians if you use the Paragon option during Tali's trial heading into ME3.



Renegades get Reaper tech that will probably indoctrinate a good portion of it's researchers before they can make any valuable advancement.



Good luck with that.

[Trackrtar]

Default137 wrote...

Seriously.

In every Bioware games, there are two paths, the good path, which if you go this route evertything is always sunshine, happiness, and flowers, and the evil/mean/thug path, which if you go this way, every big choices ends up having serious negative repercussions down the road, NPCs don't want to talk to you, and most of the choices involve you being a total idiot. And I got to thinking, why is this? Why is it that choosing the "good" choice is always the right one? Why can't for once, things play out like they would realisitically, and choosing a "good/idealisitc" choice could possibly come back and bite you in the ass, is it because Bioware is to scared the thousands of players would find this to complex, or be fruserated they can't just hop and sing through the game, or is there something else besides it.

Let me give some examples here, using both Dragon Age, and Mass Effect,

Alright, in Dragon Age, at one critical junction, you have to choose who will lead Ferelden, you get to choose between your best buddy, who is kind of a klutz, not very politically savvy, and overal very childlike if he doesn't get his way, and a very politically savvy chick who is kind of a ****, but does have the nations best interests at heart, and knows exactly how to get them.

Realistically, while promoting your buddy should be a good aligned choice, why is it the BEST choice, I am almost 100% sure those who chose the **** will end up regreting it in DA2, because she'll suddenly revert to near idiocy levels, try to kill you numerous times, or go against her character and damn the whole country for no reason whatsoever other then for Bioware to pull a gigantic "WE TOLD YOU SO HURR" to the fans who took that choice, meanwhile, the happy idiot will manage to fully lead the country to a new golden age the likes of which it has never seen, will be the GREATEST KING EVAR, and will fully listen to you at all times despite the fact he can barely tie his shoes without your help, and can't understand the very basics of politics, as shown by his tantrum at the Landsmeet.

Yeah, its nice, but it doesn't make any sense, why shouldn't it be the opposite, choosing the idiot while a good choice, leads to many innocent people getting killed by his ineptitude, while the savvy **** would lead the nation to a new glory age, and manages to use you to full effect to shut down any threats to her nation.

Its the same with Mass Effect, let me use the Council as a new example here.

In ME1 you get the option to save the Council, or let it die, if you save them, apparently thousands if not tens of thousands of human military personnal get killed, yet this has absolutly no effect in ME2, and will probably not even be mentioned in ME3, yet if you kill them, suddenly everyone hates you, no aliens want to talk to you, and the Galaxy thinks your trash. I would love to see this come back and bite people in the ass in ME3, where if you saved the Council, the Alliance would not be able to summon enough troops to defend against the Reapers, and many innocent people would die, because they are still reeling from the casualties at the battle of the Citadel, you know what will most likely happen though? If you saved the Council, they will listen to you far faster then a human led, or new council would be willing to, and you will be able to save the day FASTER, HURRAH FOR US ALL.

Another example from the end of ME2, choosing to destroy or save the base, if we save it, chances are, we will get screwed by that choice in ME3, wheras destroying it will be the heroes option, with no negatives whatsoever, as always, why can't it be set up that if you don't grab the base, our weapons and armor are not as powerful as they could be in ME3, and crew members will die in an attack, or our mother will die if we are a Spacer, because her ship was oldtech, or colonies will fall that would not normally have fallen, as with that tech we could have better defended ourselves.

tldr : I think the reason people always go good rather then choosing the more evil/blunt options is not because people don't like playing more evil minded, but rather because being good has no consequences they have to deal with, while being evil has a ton, if the choice to save the Council meant that humanity would suffer heavily, and I'd see that suffering in later games, I'd put much more thought into it then I did, which at the time was basically "Huh, I don't like Udina, STICK IT TO THE MAN" or in ME2 the Collectors base, which was mainly "I DON'T LIKE TIM, STICK IT TO THE MAN P2 STICK IT HARDER"

Doesn't really matter if the Alliane doesn't have enough people in my game.  A friend will be bringing her children to the big fight to help me bring color to the darkness.  Also I'm sure Wrex will bring some friends along for the big brawl.  Also all those Geth I saved and their new possible alliance with the Quarians.  Also I'm sure my gf Ashley won't let me stand alone.  Also my eyes are still brown.

[Fulgrim88]

Tandemir wrote...

Boo hoo hoo! I played the game like a sociopath and had to face the consequences. I think to make it fair, everyone who plays a real hero should be forced to face really bad consequences too...

/sarcasm

You want Paragon choices to have severe consequences? Seriously?

No, we want bad decisions to have bad consequences.
Being a complete ***hole to each and every person you encounter is a bad choice and should have bad consequences. However, skipping on strategic resources in a war where the odds are stacked against you, is also a bad decision...and should have bad consequences.

It's as easy as that

[Nimander]

I agree with someone above. This basically reads as 'I want Bioware to legitimize and support my viewpoint over everyone else's! I must have validation of my viewpoint or I'll whine!'



I play Paragons and in ME2 at least, I play Renegades too (well, more Renegons, Renegades with a touch of Paragon, but still). I don't agree.

[Sharn01]

Default137 wrote...

Lunarionsilver wrote...

Playing full Paradon or full Renegade has never struct me as something to do. I base my decisions on how my character would. Sometiems those choices are 'Paragon' and sometimes they are 'Regegade'. Playing either or just isn't realistic I'd say.
That said, I think you used poor examples from both those games. I find that usually the decisions are more in tones of grey.
For example: In DAO you can choose the Dark Pact, which would be the 'wrong' choice, possibly have a happy ending, and get screwed when it comes into frution. Or you could deny the Pact, possibly have a craptastic ending, but at least know it wouldn't come back to bite you.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are very similar. How do you know those idealist choices won't ruin you? Reprogram the Geth? Could turn on you instead of helping defeat the Reapers. Cure the Krogan? Could help fight the Reapers, or perhaps form a Horde and nother Rebellion, costing thousands of lives. Quarrians going to war? Maybe they would win and defeat the bulk of the Geth who would have joined the Reapers, or maybe they would have lost, thus destroying the largest fleet in the galaxy.

The 'good' choices in a game don't always have happy endings.

My basis right now is on Biowares track record, not only from previous games, but also from ME1 to ME2.

In ME1, if you save the Council, you did so at the cost of oh lets say, 7 million human lives, you also practicially destroyed one of humanities main fleets, and it would probably take anywhere from 5-6 years to fix all that up, all for the sake of saving 4 people. That never came back, and judging by how Bioware handled its previous games, it never will, that loss of life and loss of a fleet at most will get a minor mention in ME3, but they'll have magically fixed any potentiol consequence it might have had, because apparently being good is more important then realistic scenarios.

And thats kind of what I'm getting at here, there is no consequence for being good in Bioware games, you just threw away an entire fleet for no reason? Aww, don't worry, you won't have to see how the weakened Alliance fleet will be unable to protect its border colonies during the full out Reaper attack, and billons will die because of your idealism, because in your perfect Paragon world, bad things don't happen!

You do realize that saving the council cost 7 ships and around 150 human lives, of course you also saved the other 5000 people on the ship, not just the council?  Gross exaggerating does not endear people to agree with you unless they already do.   Same with Alistair, he was not an idiot in general, he just had no clue about politic's.

[Collider]

I wouldn't mind a little more equal consequences for paragon/renegade. Dragon Age did it well, it seems.

[Massadonious1]

Saving the council also saved the other 9,996 lives on the Ascencion.