obatalaryder
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 248 Likes: 402
inherit
4335
0
May 19, 2021 14:12:04 GMT
402
obatalaryder
248
March 2017
obatalaryder
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by obatalaryder on May 17, 2021 23:08:21 GMT
Can we please stop talking about real world history/politics. I think they're appropriate parallels for certain arguments. Mass Effect's lens on war and politics is not made in some fictitious vacuum. Practically everything in the lore has a reference to real life world events and military history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is directly referenced in the codex somewhere. I get it can sometimes veer off-topic in theme, but I find it unrealistic to not want to relate and compare issues to their real-life parallel/inspiration. Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade?
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,867 Likes: 3,483
inherit
9886
0
Apr 25, 2024 21:14:42 GMT
3,483
ahglock
2,867
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on May 18, 2021 3:03:47 GMT
Can we please stop talking about real world history/politics. I think they're appropriate parallels for certain arguments. Mass Effect's lens on war and politics is not made in some fictitious vacuum. Practically everything in the lore has a reference to real life world events and military history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is directly referenced in the codex somewhere. I get it can sometimes veer off-topic in theme, but I find it unrealistic to not want to relate and compare issues to their real-life parallel/inspiration. Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade? Sure, but something like Hiroshima becomes more of a political discussion. There is no good way to have that discussion on a game forum.
|
|
Carcharoth
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Carcharoth42
PSN: Fenrisulfr42
Posts: 329 Likes: 881
inherit
136
0
Apr 26, 2024 11:12:12 GMT
881
Carcharoth
329
August 2016
carcharoth
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Carcharoth42
Fenrisulfr42
|
Post by Carcharoth on May 18, 2021 18:01:02 GMT
I think they're appropriate parallels for certain arguments. Mass Effect's lens on war and politics is not made in some fictitious vacuum. Practically everything in the lore has a reference to real life world events and military history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is directly referenced in the codex somewhere. I get it can sometimes veer off-topic in theme, but I find it unrealistic to not want to relate and compare issues to their real-life parallel/inspiration. Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade? Sure, but something like Hiroshima becomes more of a political discussion. There is no good way to have that discussion on a game forum. Then we can't use any historical events as examples, since they could be considered political to someone. Would you rather use the fictional cities of "Toshiba" and "Kawasaki", which had "magic" bombs dropped on them, destroying them and leaving the survivors with "magic" poisoning? It's fiction, and therefore acceptable, right? Or should we instead accept that some parts of history, while uncomfortable for some to think about, are still useful as examples? There should be a cut off point to avoid current year politics, but there needs to be a limit.
|
|
Cyberstrike
N4
is wanting to have some fun!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: cyberstrike nTo
PSN: cyberstrike-nTo
Prime Posts: 1,732
Prime Likes: 467
Posts: 1,874 Likes: 3,041
inherit
634
0
May 14, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
3,041
Cyberstrike
is wanting to have some fun!
1,874
August 2016
cyberstrike
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cyberstrike nTo
cyberstrike-nTo
1,732
467
|
Post by Cyberstrike on May 18, 2021 21:50:55 GMT
Can we please stop talking about real world history/politics. I think they're appropriate parallels for certain arguments. Mass Effect's lens on war and politics is not made in some fictitious vacuum. Practically everything in the lore has a reference to real life world events and military history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is directly referenced in the codex somewhere. I get it can sometimes veer off-topic in theme, but I find it unrealistic to not want to relate and compare issues to their real-life parallel/inspiration. Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade?
In ME1 War Hero quest an old probe with a nuke attached to it Hacket refers to the bomb's power as being equal to "Hiroshima back in the 20th".
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,668
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,668
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on May 19, 2021 1:50:33 GMT
Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade? I'm a Paragon player but, when the discussion is "can some Renegade choices turn out good" and "can some Paragon choices turn out bad" then the wheels turn. I do not play Renegade and doubt I ever will but it's worth it to think about the ends justifying the means. They may but it's beyond my ability to make such a decision.
|
|
14thcommander
N2
Your Fave Vanguard Knucklehead
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 220 Likes: 612
inherit
11921
0
Jan 17, 2023 15:41:11 GMT
612
14thcommander
Your Fave Vanguard Knucklehead
220
May 16, 2021 15:14:45 GMT
May 2021
14thcommander
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by 14thcommander on May 28, 2021 13:27:16 GMT
Morality is often grey.
I think if you always choose the Paragon options, then you're obviously letting some things fly that shouldn't. I think sometimes it's right to be harsh, especially against politicians who try to dick you around for their own gain. *cough*Udina*cough*. I play mostly Paragon and chose Renegade when I think it would make sense for my Shepard to do so. I think for RP purposes, it makes sense for Shepard to lose their cool sometimes, and to even make mistakes.
When it comes to real-world events, war is war and of course, there's always going to be parallels to what happened in actual history but regardless of that, ME is fiction and should be viewed as such even if they reference real-world events. If you try to justify doing something as Renegade Shep that parallels a real-world event, just keep in mind that you're not doing that action personally or even think it's right.
I get that it's hard to have that disconnect though, because like it or not we end up connecting emotionally with our Shepard, which is why I always play Paragon personally.
|
|
quarianmasterrace
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
PSN: QuarianMasteRace
Posts: 175 Likes: 612
inherit
11914
0
Nov 20, 2023 18:26:22 GMT
612
quarianmasterrace
175
May 14, 2021 21:10:25 GMT
May 2021
quarianmasterrace
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
QuarianMasteRace
|
Post by quarianmasterrace on May 29, 2021 15:10:10 GMT
Most of them are the right choices tho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 9:22:10 GMT
Most of them are the right choices tho. Many, yes. Most? Haha no.
|
|
inherit
Warning Points: 1
3116
0
8,041
vonuber
2,580
January 2017
vonuber
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by vonuber on Jun 3, 2021 0:35:22 GMT
Anyone who plays femshep and chooses the initial responses to Harkin as paragon just needs a slap, in my opinion.
That's one example where the paragon choice is hugely out of character for Shep.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jun 3, 2021 4:54:25 GMT
Anyone who plays femshep and chooses the initial responses to Harkin as paragon just needs a slap, in my opinion. That's one example where the paragon choice is hugely out of character for Shep. Is that the “Maybe later” line? I disagree. We are there to get information from Harmon, so humoring him a little to have him like us more thus more likely to help definitely fits a lot of Shepards.
|
|
14thcommander
N2
Your Fave Vanguard Knucklehead
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 220 Likes: 612
inherit
11921
0
Jan 17, 2023 15:41:11 GMT
612
14thcommander
Your Fave Vanguard Knucklehead
220
May 16, 2021 15:14:45 GMT
May 2021
14thcommander
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by 14thcommander on Jun 3, 2021 13:02:59 GMT
It feels like sometimes they stick to their guns and sometimes they don't, but the issue is if you make Renegade 100% ruthless that isn't logical. Just like Shepard being 100% heroic and morally 'right' all the time is impossible. I hope they'll make the Renegade interrupts less messed up, and fit with the intimidate options you get.
Like for example, in ME2, that kid in Afterlife who wants to join the fight against Archangel. You can stop him as Paragon, but why can't you scare him away as Renegade? Your only option is to let him die. in my opinion, Renegade should be about telling it like it is and giving the person the choice, apart from that, it's out of Shepard's hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 0:07:12 GMT
Can we please stop talking about real world history/politics. I think they're appropriate parallels for certain arguments. Mass Effect's lens on war and politics is not made in some fictitious vacuum. Practically everything in the lore has a reference to real life world events and military history. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is directly referenced in the codex somewhere. I get it can sometimes veer off-topic in theme, but I find it unrealistic to not want to relate and compare issues to their real-life parallel/inspiration. Are Paragon players turned off by the real-life parallels to Renegade? All my renegade Shepards have been, at their soul, paragons. There are several instances where being intimidating works just as well at saving someone as being charming. In ME1, the line to intimidate Jeong to stand down saves him just as well as a the charm one... and it costs fewer points (9 intimidate vs. 12 charm). On Noveria, one can intimidate Lorek Qu'in into testifying just as easily as charming him. You can also use renegade lines to get into Major Kyle's bunker without killing his followers and further use intimidating dialogue to convince him to surrender peacefully. This quest has a clear real world parallel to the incident in Waco, Texas with David Koresh.
When I play ME1, I pretty much always shoot for an equally amount of paragon and renegade choices (filling both bars and getting the 190 point boost going into ME2 for both paragon and renegade). It can be done with very few casualties.
An obvious "right" choice that is renegade is to kill Balak during Bring Down the Sky. However, still a renegade choice is too intimidate him, interrogate him, and leave him for the Alliance. This will mean that he doesn't kill quite so many people in ME3 when he goes about using his Batarian Codes... as opposed to just letting him go to save Kate Bowman and the hostages (which is the Paragon choice).
Killing Rana Thanoptis in ME1 also results in fewer reported casualties in ME3.
Familiarizing oneself with the Morality Guides in the Wiki for all three games helps the player with actually knowing which choices actually award paragon or renegade points and which others don't award any points either way despite them being "blue" or "red" choices.
|
|
jadebaby88
N2
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
Posts: 189 Likes: 230
inherit
11462
0
Apr 25, 2022 23:52:55 GMT
230
jadebaby88
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
189
April 2020
jadebaby88
|
Post by jadebaby88 on Jun 5, 2021 3:07:23 GMT
No, they won't. Because here's the thing: the renegade choices were always like the dark side choices in KOTOR especially in ME1. For example a human backed/led council makes the other races not trust humanity especially when humanity needs them in ME3. I mean why should they? That isn't bad storytelling that is how people like them will react in the real world. The renegade path is basically telling "You make a bad decision it will always end badly for you." That is the point of the Renegade path. Actually, you're just straight up wrong. Mac Walters himself answered in an interview that the idea of Mass Effect was to give players free choice and to make one path "no less better than the other". Which I suppose is the reason why some of the choices balance themselves out in War Assets in ME3. However, despite what Mac "daddy" Walters said was the point of the renegade path, we all know that Paragon has more galactic support and content than a renegade Shepard does. I think the renegade path just became BioWare's out for dropping plot strings. What I mean by that is the amount of plot strings they had to keep track of after ME1 not to mention ME2, became so overwhelming that any chance to do less with something they took. For example, killed Helena Blake in ME1? Well BioWare had two choices; 1. Create another elaborate story where instead of seeing Helena Blake on Omega in ME2, you see her son/partner/friend etc that swears to get revenge on you thus creating another plot thread. or 2. Drop it and put more resources to something else. As for the less support you get playing renegade, how immersion breaking would it be if everyone acted like your friend after you'd killed all their political leaders?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 3:25:26 GMT
No, they won't. Because here's the thing: the renegade choices were always like the dark side choices in KOTOR especially in ME1. For example a human backed/led council makes the other races not trust humanity especially when humanity needs them in ME3. I mean why should they? That isn't bad storytelling that is how people like them will react in the real world. The renegade path is basically telling "You make a bad decision it will always end badly for you." That is the point of the Renegade path. Actually, you're just straight up wrong. Mac Walters himself answered in an interview that the idea of Mass Effect was to give players free choice and to make one path "no less better than the other". Which I suppose is the reason why some of the choices balance themselves out in War Assets in ME3. However, despite what Mac "daddy" Walters said was the point of the renegade path, we all know that Paragon has more galactic support and content than a renegade Shepard does. I think the renegade path just became BioWare's out for dropping plot strings. What I mean by that is the amount of plot strings they had to keep track of after ME1 not to mention ME2, became so overwhelming that any chance to do less with something they took. For example, killed Helena Blake in ME1? Well BioWare had two choices; 1. Create another elaborate story where instead of seeing Helena Blake on Omega in ME2, you see her son/partner/friend etc that swears to get revenge on you thus creating another plot thread. or 2. Drop it and put more resources to something else. As for the less support you get playing renegade, how immersion breaking would it be if everyone acted like your friend after you'd killed all their political leaders? I think it's unreasonable to expect any law-abiding company to set up what many gamers seem to interpret as "renegade" behavior as being "right" or "good" when society as a whole tends to judge it as being "wrong" or "unnecessarily brutal" or even "criminal" or "psychotic." Hauling out a gun a just shooting everyone like some vigilante... no matter how one tries to "justify" it is, by most legal standards inherently wrong.
Although it was set out by a poster early on in this thread that "shooting Wrex is right" It's not "right" since he can be talked down using either a paragon or a renegade dialogue option or by simply doing his family armor quest. Using the renegade dialogue option to talk him down will yield renegade points... not as many points as shooting him, but still renegade points. The "right" choice if someone mistrusts him so much for just being a krogan is to not take him on your squad... which doesn't yield any points in either direction no matter what you decide. Helena Blake can be convinced to "disband the gang" using an intimidate option... and this will yield renegade points to the player. There is no need to kill her and she shows up in ME2 just the same as if the charm alternative is used.
|
|
inherit
10735
0
Jul 17, 2022 15:59:28 GMT
362
sassafrassa
292
January 2019
sassafrassa
|
Post by sassafrassa on Jun 5, 2021 3:59:14 GMT
Although it was set out by a poster early on in this thread that "shooting Wrex is right" It's not "right" since he can be talked down using either a paragon or a renegade dialogue option or by simply doing his family armor quest Does Shepard know this is all just a video game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 4:43:26 GMT
Although it was set out by a poster early on in this thread that "shooting Wrex is right" It's not "right" since he can be talked down using either a paragon or a renegade dialogue option or by simply doing his family armor quest Does Shepard know this is all just a video game? I'm not judging the action by virtue of it being a videogame. If Shepard is racially prejudice against krogan, then he has no business bringing a krogan onto his team. The game does give him the option of not recruiting Wrex. The only thing the game stipulates is that he must recruit either Garrus or Wrex... so which group of aliens does he trust more becomes the question. Once Wrex is on Shepard's team, Shepard gets to know HIM as an individual. Wrex does nothing in the course of the game to earn mistrust from Shepard. He watches his back (all the while having a gun pointed at Shepard's back). Shepard owes his squad member the benefit of hearing him out on Virmire... and he can use a renegade option to talk him down just as easily as he can shoot him. IF he hasn't done the Family Armor quest or hasn't got sufficient charm or intimidate to talk him down, then Wrex dying is unavoidable... but still Shepard has set up a backup in Ashley so that Shepard can still afford to hear Wrex out while still being protected. At no time is Wrex actually a threat to Shepard. Neither is he a threat to the mission.. because after talking him down, Shepard still doesn't have to take him on his squad, but rather can just leave him on the ship... or conversely, he can take him on his squad where he can keep a close eye on him (and the result is that Wrex does not do anything that jeopardizes the mission... He's good to his word.)
Shooting Wrex outright is racial profiling and society judges that as "wrong."
I would venture to guess that a whole lot of people around here who advocate shooting Wrex would not do so IF there was a way to save Mordin if Wrex is alive... regardless of whether or not believe curing or not curing the genophage is right or wrong. The way around it is still not recruiting Wrex (and the game assumes he dies elsewhere)... but, for some unknown reason, gamers don't like not recruiting squad members lest they miss out on content.
|
|
jadebaby88
N2
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
Posts: 189 Likes: 230
inherit
11462
0
Apr 25, 2022 23:52:55 GMT
230
jadebaby88
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
189
April 2020
jadebaby88
|
Post by jadebaby88 on Jun 5, 2021 6:55:52 GMT
I think it's unreasonable to expect any law-abiding company to set up what many gamers seem to interpret as "renegade" behavior as being "right" or "good" when society as a whole tends to judge it as being "wrong" or "unnecessarily brutal" or even "criminal" or "psychotic." Hauling out a gun a just shooting everyone like some vigilante... no matter how one tries to "justify" it is, by most legal standards inherently wrong. I could name 10 games right now without even googling that display inherent anti-society behaviour, and some of these are very successful AAA game studios. Also, gamers do not "interpret" behaviour as being renegade. It's renegade because the developers themselves labelled it so. And as I've already mentioned, the developers themselves wanted that renegade behaviour to be just a viable as paragon behaviour. The fact it didn't pan out that way does not discredit their intentions.
|
|
steppinrazor
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 169 Likes: 198
inherit
4332
0
198
steppinrazor
169
March 2017
steppinrazor
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by steppinrazor on Jun 5, 2021 8:26:22 GMT
I think a better option would have been for the rachni to simply *not* exist in ME3 if I killed the queen, which to that end would mean there are no ravagers on the field, essentially making encounters a little easier as a result of you wiping out the bugs. The fact that the reapers spontaneously decide to just reconstitute this race out of nothing just seems kind of odd, but I guess they didn’t want to have an entire mission locked out because of a choice made way back in ME1. I mean, it doesn't seem that spontaneous. They're great warriors, have been present since the first game, why wouldn't the Reapers use them? And the reapers are a galaxy wide threat and obviously know the history of this cycle and the rachni.
|
|
inherit
10735
0
Jul 17, 2022 15:59:28 GMT
362
sassafrassa
292
January 2019
sassafrassa
|
Post by sassafrassa on Jun 5, 2021 8:48:02 GMT
I'm not judging the action by virtue of it being a videogame. If Shepard is racially prejudice against krogan, then he has no business bringing a krogan onto his team. What does prejudice have to do with this? Wrex is a clear and present danger when he pulls a gun on you and threatens completion of the mission. Totally justified in killing him at that point in self defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 10:48:41 GMT
I think it's unreasonable to expect any law-abiding company to set up what many gamers seem to interpret as "renegade" behavior as being "right" or "good" when society as a whole tends to judge it as being "wrong" or "unnecessarily brutal" or even "criminal" or "psychotic." Hauling out a gun a just shooting everyone like some vigilante... no matter how one tries to "justify" it is, by most legal standards inherently wrong. I could name 10 games right now without even googling that display inherent anti-society behaviour, and some of these are very successful AAA game studios. Also, gamers do not "interpret" behaviour as being renegade. It's renegade because the developers themselves labelled it so. And as I've already mentioned, the developers themselves wanted that renegade behaviour to be just a viable as paragon behaviour. The fact it didn't pan out that way does not discredit their intentions. 1) Do those other 10 games label that "anti-social behavior" as being "right" or "good?" We're not talking about "successful" here.
2) You answer question 1 with your statement that "renegade" in Mass Effect has been labeled by Bioware... and that labeling isn't a shoot everything philosophy. Mass Effect tends to equate Renegade with being Intimidating and usually assigns the more negative/harsher consequences to those intimidating actions. However, it IS still as viable to play a renegade as a paragon and still complete the games with getting the missions done.
3) However, it isn't ever going to be labeled as "right" or "good" etc. That's an unreasonable expectation of the player and based on their interpretation of the term "renegade" vs. Bioware's interpretation of it.
The closest this game gets is in that infamous ending. The paragon (blue) ending is Control and the Renegade (red) ending is Destroy (which is the favored ending by the players). Furthermore, Control is the "Vigil solution"... Vigil was a VI with personality imprints from Kasad Ishaan and the Control ending inserts a Shepard VI in charge of the reapers with personality imprints from Commander Shepard, so the "good" control ending is still depending on Shepard being more paragon than renegade. If you look at the story... the Reapers never controlled the development of organics... although they claimed to do that while themselves under the complete control of the Catalyst. Ultimately, they failed to control the keepers and they failed to control organics enough to prevent the ongoing development of the Catalyst. So why is control the "paragon" ending - It's the one that allows the society to continue developing on its own as it always had with Shepard VI merely controlling the Reapers instead of the Catalyst. Since the "personality imprint" in both cases is all about "stopping the harvest," that's what happens with the control ending regardless of Shepard being a paragon or a renegade.
Destroy is about following through with the total destruction of one's enemies and Bioware has labeled as being Renegade. It can be achieved using either a paragon or a renegade path since the game uses EMS to scale it from "lots of collateral damage" to "losing only the enemy and one other species" type of damage. They've never succumbed to declaring it to be the "good" ending despite 9 years of pressure from a section of the player base (that does claim to represent the majority of the player base). They've not succumbed to removing the negative consequence of it either. I don't think they ever will.
It would have been easy for them to make Synthesis the hands down "best" ending - but they inserted a negative consequence by suggesting that DNA was altered. So, contrary to accusations - synthesis is not the "good" ending and Bioware never labeled that way. It's green... a compromise of the blue with a little "yellow" thrown in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 11:08:57 GMT
I'm not judging the action by virtue of it being a videogame. If Shepard is racially prejudice against krogan, then he has no business bringing a krogan onto his team. What does prejudice have to do with this? Wrex is a clear and present danger when he pulls a gun on you and threatens completion of the mission. Totally justified in killing him at that point in self defense. No, he's not... You've protected yourself with Ashley being at the ready. Also, he never threatens to shoot you. Verbally, he merely says he can't let you destroy the cure. He's still talking. So, I'm not metagaming... I'm taking my own "read" the on the level of threat. It disagrees with yours... so what.
Shooting Wrex is not the "right" choice, but if you think it is, you can still earn "renegade" points by doing it. If you don't think it's the "right" choice, then I can still earn renegade points by talking him down. I don't need any paragon to do that. Throughout the game, you can earn renegade points by "not shooting people" so there are lots of places where the game says a "renegade choice" is the "right choice."
Will more renegade options be the "right" choice... not if what the OP interprets as being renegade is to just shoot everyone vigilante style. That's not the definition of "renegade." and not Bioware's definition of "renegade" either (and Bioware's definition of renegade within Mass Effect does differ from the dictionary definition of the word as well).
|
|
jadebaby88
N2
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
Posts: 189 Likes: 230
inherit
11462
0
Apr 25, 2022 23:52:55 GMT
230
jadebaby88
Official BSN Originale - Still searching for a better ending to ME3
189
April 2020
jadebaby88
|
Post by jadebaby88 on Jun 5, 2021 14:46:40 GMT
Do those other 10 games label that "anti-social behavior" as being "right" or "good?" We're not talking about "successful" here. Except that we are talking about it being successful, both the games financially in the real world. And successful in the game too. As in these other games, as well as Mass Effect you can be both successful (in the mission and story) while also being brutal about it too. Sure, more people will die along the way and you will not be "as" successful as a paragon route, but you can be successful nonetheless. However, both success and good v evil are subjective. Therefore when you say "do they label anti-social behaviour as being right or good?" To what societal standards are you talking about when you say good or evil? I would imagine Western Society standards? To which case the answer would be yes anyway. Ever heard of a game called Manhunt? However, it IS still as viable to play a renegade as a paragon and still complete the games with getting the missions done. Thus it is about a matter of success. Not good v evil. However, it isn't ever going to be labeled as "right" or "good" That's an unreasonable expectation of the player and based on their interpretation of the term "renegade" vs. Bioware's interpretation of it. Except the only interpretation the player can make of the term renegade within the Mass Effect Universe is confined to the concepts explored within the renegade narrative itself, of which was all created by BioWare. Thus BioWare's and the player's interpretation of what renegade means in Mass Effect should be somewhat similar to each other, on slightly varying scales of course. The closest this game gets is in that infamous ending. The paragon (blue) ending is Control and the Renegade (red) ending is Destroy (which is the favored ending by the players)Furthermore, Control is the "Vigil solution"... Vigil was a VI with personality imprints from Kasad Ishaan and the Control ending inserts a Shepard VI in charge of the reapers with personality imprints from Commander Shepard, so the "good" control ending is still depending on Shepard being more paragon than renegade. If you look at the story... the Reapers never controlled the development of organics... although they claimed to do that while themselves under the complete control of the Catalyst. Ultimately, they failed to control the keepers and they failed to control organics enough to prevent the ongoing development of the Catalyst. So why is control the "paragon" ending - It's the one that allows the society to continue developing on its own as it always had with Shepard VI merely controlling the Reapers instead of the Catalyst. Since the "personality imprint" in both cases is all about "stopping the harvest," that's what happens with the control ending regardless of Shepard being a paragon or a renegade. Destroy is about following through with the total destruction of one's enemies and Bioware has labeled as being Renegade. It can be achieved using either a paragon or a renegade path since the game uses EMS to scale it from "lots of collateral damage" to "losing only the enemy and one other species" type of damage. They've never succumbed to declaring it to be the "good" ending despite 9 years of pressure from a section of the player base (that does claim to represent the majority of the player base). They've not succumbed to removing the negative consequence of it either. I don't think they ever will. It would have been easy for them to make Synthesis the hands down "best" ending - but they inserted a negative consequence by suggesting that DNA was altered. So, contrary to accusations - synthesis is not the "good" ending and Bioware never labeled that way. It's green... a compromise of the blue with a little "yellow" thrown in. This, in my opinion, has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start. Reading into the colors of the ending as any sort of symbolism of the renegade/paragon paths is ridiculous to me. No matter what that freak kid says I'm never trusting it to control the Reapers. We have seen in the narrative time and again that no one can do it. So why trust the leader of your enemy when it says that you're different at the 11th hour? Regardless of your answer, I didn't start this debate with the intention of discussing the semantics of the final hours of Mass Effect 3, I've spent thousands of hours trying to understand them (literally). I don't need to discuss it anymore, so I wont continue arguing about it.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Jun 5, 2021 15:57:28 GMT
I think a better option would have been for the rachni to simply *not* exist in ME3 if I killed the queen, which to that end would mean there are no ravagers on the field, essentially making encounters a little easier as a result of you wiping out the bugs. The fact that the reapers spontaneously decide to just reconstitute this race out of nothing just seems kind of odd, but I guess they didn’t want to have an entire mission locked out because of a choice made way back in ME1. I mean, it doesn't seem that spontaneous. They're great warriors, have been present since the first game, why wouldn't the Reapers use them? And the reapers are a galaxy wide threat and obviously know the history of this cycle and the rachni. If the queen is destroyed in ME1, where did the reapers find the material to recreate their own rachni? It’s one thing if the reapers take and repurpose existing life forms for their own means, but it doesn’t make any sense to straight up manufacture new ones for their army when there’s plenty of heavy-hitting creatures in abundance to use, like krogan, harvesters, etc.. The issue is more that BioWare wasn’t going to make these assets mutually exclusive based on a choice made way back in ME1, even if it’s at the expense of the story you selected. This begs the question: if the reapers could just clone a breeder for shock troops, why bother with anything else? They can just make a few queens and have a bug swarm and never have to bother with husks again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 16:56:49 GMT
I mean, it doesn't seem that spontaneous. They're great warriors, have been present since the first game, why wouldn't the Reapers use them? And the reapers are a galaxy wide threat and obviously know the history of this cycle and the rachni. If the queen is destroyed in ME1, where did the reapers find the material to recreate their own rachni? It’s one thing if the reapers take and repurpose existing life forms for their own means, but it doesn’t make any sense to straight up manufacture new ones for their army when there’s plenty of heavy-hitting creatures in abundance to use, like krogan, harvesters, etc.. The issue is more that BioWare wasn’t going to make these assets mutually exclusive based on a choice made way back in ME1, even if it’s at the expense of the story you selected. This begs the question: if the reapers could just clone a breeder for shock troops, why bother with anything else? They can just make a few queens and have a bug swarm and never have to bother with husks again. Tartakovsky in ME1 does allude to there being more eggs on the ship they discovered before they just brought the one egg back to bring it back to life and discovered it was a queen. We also know that, due to Cerberus' failure to contain their work (which is not the same organization as Binary Helix), we encounter more rachni in the Styx Theta Cluster after Noveria is completed. We track the source of one supply ship, but the recordings allude to there also being more of those.
There is also a question as to why there was the original ship floating around space laden with rachni eggs. I believe the Reapers were breading them long before anyone in the galaxy knew about it... and already preparing to turn them into the sort of "monster" we encounter in ME3. The original Rachni queen only escaped that "conversion" (or "indoctrination" if you prefer) because Binary Helix took one of the eggs they found from the ship and brought it to Peak 15 to be revived... away from the "songs like oily shadows." What Shepard destroys if he kills the queen is any chance for the species to generate "normal" children, not a guarantee that there are no more "indoctrinated" rachni left in the galaxy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 26, 2024 12:06:20 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 17:02:16 GMT
Do those other 10 games label that "anti-social behavior" as being "right" or "good?" We're not talking about "successful" here. Except that we are talking about it being successful, both the games financially in the real world. And successful in the game too. As in these other games, as well as Mass Effect you can be both successful (in the mission and story) while also being brutal about it too. Sure, more people will die along the way and you will not be "as" successful as a paragon route, but you can be successful nonetheless. However, both success and good v evil are subjective. Therefore when you say "do they label anti-social behaviour as being right or good?" To what societal standards are you talking about when you say good or evil? I would imagine Western Society standards? To which case the answer would be yes anyway. Ever heard of a game called Manhunt? However, it IS still as viable to play a renegade as a paragon and still complete the games with getting the missions done. Thus it is about a matter of success. Not good v evil. However, it isn't ever going to be labeled as "right" or "good" That's an unreasonable expectation of the player and based on their interpretation of the term "renegade" vs. Bioware's interpretation of it. Except the only interpretation the player can make of the term renegade within the Mass Effect Universe is confined to the concepts explored within the renegade narrative itself, of which was all created by BioWare. Thus BioWare's and the player's interpretation of what renegade means in Mass Effect should be somewhat similar to each other, on slightly varying scales of course. The closest this game gets is in that infamous ending. The paragon (blue) ending is Control and the Renegade (red) ending is Destroy (which is the favored ending by the players)Furthermore, Control is the "Vigil solution"... Vigil was a VI with personality imprints from Kasad Ishaan and the Control ending inserts a Shepard VI in charge of the reapers with personality imprints from Commander Shepard, so the "good" control ending is still depending on Shepard being more paragon than renegade. If you look at the story... the Reapers never controlled the development of organics... although they claimed to do that while themselves under the complete control of the Catalyst. Ultimately, they failed to control the keepers and they failed to control organics enough to prevent the ongoing development of the Catalyst. So why is control the "paragon" ending - It's the one that allows the society to continue developing on its own as it always had with Shepard VI merely controlling the Reapers instead of the Catalyst. Since the "personality imprint" in both cases is all about "stopping the harvest," that's what happens with the control ending regardless of Shepard being a paragon or a renegade. Destroy is about following through with the total destruction of one's enemies and Bioware has labeled as being Renegade. It can be achieved using either a paragon or a renegade path since the game uses EMS to scale it from "lots of collateral damage" to "losing only the enemy and one other species" type of damage. They've never succumbed to declaring it to be the "good" ending despite 9 years of pressure from a section of the player base (that does claim to represent the majority of the player base). They've not succumbed to removing the negative consequence of it either. I don't think they ever will. It would have been easy for them to make Synthesis the hands down "best" ending - but they inserted a negative consequence by suggesting that DNA was altered. So, contrary to accusations - synthesis is not the "good" ending and Bioware never labeled that way. It's green... a compromise of the blue with a little "yellow" thrown in. This, in my opinion, has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start. Reading into the colors of the ending as any sort of symbolism of the renegade/paragon paths is ridiculous to me. No matter what that freak kid says I'm never trusting it to control the Reapers. We have seen in the narrative time and again that no one can do it. So why trust the leader of your enemy when it says that you're different at the 11th hour? Regardless of your answer, I didn't start this debate with the intention of discussing the semantics of the final hours of Mass Effect 3, I've spent thousands of hours trying to understand them (literally). I don't need to discuss it anymore, so I wont continue arguing about it. You can do what you like and interpret it however you like. I don't care. The game already offers plenty of renegade choices that are not 'shoot to kill" first. "Good" or "right" is an interpretation to be made by individual players based on their personal moral compasses...or their desire to play a "not good" character. I still think it is unreasonable to expect that Bioware will start declaring "renegade" shoot first, talk later type of decisions as being "good" or "right" as much as some of the player base continue to want them to make such a declaration regarding the ME franchise and, in particular, ME3's endings. Individual players can continue to use whatever headcanons they want to... and mine are as good as yours. If they do ever start making such a declaration, then it will be up to me to decide whether or not I'll buy that game and you would face the same decision. I'm not about to change my IRL moral compass because of a game. End discussion.
|
|