Will more Renegade options be the “right” choice in future games?

Renegade’s problem is that more often than not, it’s just Shepard needlessly being an asshole than actually being ruthless or pragmatic, the latter of which doesn’t even exist for this alignment anyway.

Well since this was not racist, sexist or homophobic that makes no sense. You just don't have a sense of humor, deal with it.

Why does everyone laugh when the reporter in die hard gets punched by McClanes wife at the end of the movie.  It is a ludicrous action to deal with a person who is over the top obnoxious.  That's the humor, then they made it a running gag and not a one off. My understanding is a large number of people did it and found it amusing enough to do in each game.  You can not like the joke and still have a sense of humor, not getting that it is one stamping your feet and complaining about it means you don't.

Speaking of that approval system.... It should carry over from each game so that you don't get friendzoned in every playthough.

He does not become loyal if red/blue is low. He will be loyal, if Shepard chooses to let the people die, but if not, he will only become loyal if red/blue is high enough.

As I've said before, a  paragon Shepard can have a worse playthrough than a renegade Shepard. I played renegade with only 2 squadmates dead at the end of ME3, A/K, and the edibot, with my renegade bar over 90%. I did a paragon playthrough with the memorial wall filled before Shepard headed to earth with the paragon bar over 90%

Thing is, it’s only possible for them to have a worse playthrough if you actively avoid fulfilling certain objectives or choose all the neutral options that ensure a character’s death. Like, simply not talking to characters to build reputation so that you can guarantee that they can’t be talked down, or choosing the wrong role in the suicide mission are tied to neither alignment, but it’s a death just the same. I think the point is that the paragon choices themselves do not really penalize the player, all other things being equal. 

I actually preferred DA2’s way of going about it than DA:O, but in any case, I would have an approval system work primarily just for the interpersonal stuff, rather than really tying it into the main story. Like, characters who are duty-bound to serve on your ship aren’t just going to up and leave or betray you just because they don’t like you, but they could have a different disposition when you try to talk to them, so they’ll just keep things more professional rather than friendly, offering little to no opportunity to get to know them better, and obviously lock out their romance. I find Mass Effect companions are a bit too static in this respect, so you can just fulfill certain tasks and win them over even when you’re kind of a psycho. 

I would like more "renegade" options but it doesn't need to be so black and white. Have a variety of options that encompass different methods to solve the quest or respond to someone. Then it is also important that the "paragon" option doesn't always get the best result, which is something that prevents people from choosing any other option. There should be room for both idealism and pragmatism, with cost/benefits associated with each. Also, morally grey options where there aren't any perfect choices. But I don't think we need paragon/renegade so much as just dialogue, choice, and outcome variety.

The Paragon\Renegade issue is awkward because its so inconsistent and as the OP states, is very lop sided in favour of Paragon. It was always aggravating but especially in ME2 with those crew disputes that could only be resolved if you had a high enough % of either based on total points gained so far. This locked me out of the Miranda\Jack one because whilst I'm mostly Paragon, I do pick Renegade if I feel the situation calls for it and\or the Paragon option is too absurdly trusting and unrealistic etc. I play these games by trying to be true to my character and in a way which doesn't feel like it breaks credibility. So even if the game wants to say Sheperd can talk the Geth and Quarians down by appealing to their better natures, that's just nonsense in that situation, so I have to pick the Renegade option of threatening them because its the only way that outcome could be achieved IMO.

The root of the problem is the writing and editing to make the choices believable and consistent, having approval systems and persistence in the world where others will hold you accountable for the consequences of the choices you make, equal content to provide an interesting playthrough with new opportunities regardless of choices instead of 'You got it wrong haha', as well as dispensing with the foolish 'Neutral is boring' attitude. Only a deluded fool acts in such extremes, never taking context into account. The occasional lock outs in dialogue are a symptom of not having stats and therefore having almost no other way to gate outcomes - if you just say 'Do you want to be good enough to do whatever you want, whenever you want?' then people will always answer Yes and be outraged if you ever force them to accept No.

Its a shame because like I said, some Renegade options make total sense to me. Choosing to kill the Feros settlers not out of malice but because the anti fungal grenades are entirely unproven to work in this context and you're tying your squad's hands by insisting they use them, to save the Spaceport instead of the City in the Javelin missile mission, taking Pitney For's bribe instead of turning him because Spectres need friends in low places too, agreeing in principle to sabotage the Genophage cure because otherwise you're caving to Blackmail and relations with the Krogan haven't improved at all (though I don't go through with it, refusing to shoot Mordin the back out of a sense of sorrow at killing Wrex), threatening the Quarians to back down or else you'll let the upgrade go through because they caused this and could end it but if they won't do the right thing you won't save them from the consequences of their foolish actions etc etc.

There are good and sensible Renegade options. In the main missions, Renegade is usually the more believable and logical choice. But in most other situations, the Renegade options come over as staggering overreactions, bizzarely psychotic and petty and just utterly inconsistent with others' perception of Sheperd. Would the Council really okay someone whos acts out in public like that to be a Spectre, would Anderson and Udina even propose someone like that?

I don't think Renegade/Paragon will return in the shape we know it. There might be two states such as action/delegate where you do most of the work yourself or you have your crew do it for you. I just don't believe a morality based one will return since morality is eye of the beholder territory and what might be the good approach for one person isn't for another or it becomes comical in the choice we are making. So something that can more easily be defined is what I am thinking will more likely happen then the old Paragon/Renegade system which I don't even think BioWare was that happy with especially when in the third game there were Paragon/Renegade/Reputation rewards.

I also think as OP that choices have only small consequences. (I cant bring myself to skip content though, so i havent experiment at all with fast play-through that impact the story more in ME3). But it s a logical game design. Cant make a difference too big or most player wont look at it as a choice. (I would have appreciated keeping the reaper alive in ME2 would have been a better war asset gain though)

Also, many renegade option are just plain dumb and not ruthless as they could have been. And while ME3 reputation system made it better (as pointed out just above), it was a sign the moral compass was outdated.

I m pretty sure i alternate a lot too but never had to choose between those two. Even without paying attention a lot. AFAIRemember, it s old business