A New Social Order (Renegade missing)

Ok. I'm kinda gonna be a dick in this post. It's not directed at any one person, or really any particular group of people. But for fucks sake, use a little common sense.

The conversations where you have the 4 (or two, bottom or top) are the moments where you define how your Ryder behaves in every day interactions. You know, how your Ryder feels about a particular subject, or when an NPC asks you a relatively unimportant (plot-wise) question. Wanting those conversation options really change anything is just...well, stupid. Those are the "roleplaying" moments where we decide how our Ryder responds, not how the world should change to suit us.

The times when we have the two options (left and right) are the moments when we can change something about the world in more drastic ways. Save a terminally ill woman and put her back in cryo to attempt a cure (Ellen Ryder, anyone?) and let an Angaran terrorist go with a potentially lethal bioweapon, or let that woman die to kill the Roekkar and perhaps avoid a major disaster down the line.

Let an Angaran woman continue to torture a prisoner to try and find her family, or kill the Kett and end the torture so the woman is forced to accept her loss, while at the same time practically ensuring that her family is never found or rescued.

And many, MANY other examples. The Paragon/Renegade system was WAY more limiting than this current system. Do there need to be more examples of more aggressive conversation options? Sure, I'll buy into that idea. Should we be able to express different preferences regarding the AI in our heads? Sure, I wouldn't complain.

But there are plenty of moments where you can be a dick to people, piss people off to the point they won't speak to you for some time, or decide who lives and who dies.

I didn't think the system we got was so complex that so many people just don't seem to understand how it's supposed to work.

It's at the end of the game where you’ll have to choose an ambassador which is a great opportunity to look out for the Krogans. While many will disagree, it gives them a seat on the council. As well as Tann remarks that the idea was to eventually set up a council. It could very well not end up like the Milkyway council it's all up to Bioware.

Although i would be very happy to see the Nexus complete and council members of each race. Although many would say it's too much like MET it's still something that was very well done.

Even if in the first trilogy I played the good guy, being a total dick was really hillarious from time to times. When I saw the Asari journalist, my first taught was ''here is the new Khalisah al-Jilani I'm going to punch in the face!'' but she's finally not a bitch... We should at least have the possibility to punch Addison in the face, or 'Pathfinder, threw her out of the airlock'

This may be rather unpopular, but I thought DAI struck a nice balance between the two systems. You could be a straight up jerk, or stoic and serious, or funny/casual, or goody-two-shoes. On top of that, you also had special options depending on perks and background (mage, history, shady, etc). Like MEA, you could use those options anytime you wanted (ie, you weren't forced to always be dick/renegade or nice/paragon to get the best option like in MET).

And your choices actually affected the opinions of your crew in DAI, which was WAY more immersive as a character-building framework than MEA has. In MEA, your personality barely impacts your crews opinions at all...ONLY your big choices do that (and even that is very minimal and limited to a few isolated exchanges here and there). In DAI, your tone AND your big-game choices AND your dialogue choices impacted your crew's opinion of you.

If they could make the differences in dialogue tones a little more extreme (like MET), and have it actually be a bit more meaningful in how people respond to you and how situations are resolved (and have this happen more often, like DAI), I think it would likely satisfy folks in both camps (and me ).

Bioware simply replaced one restriction with another.  You only have the illusion of choice.

If done correctly there would be no illusion. 

The only way the other route is better, is if that's legitimately the only way bioware can makes choices matter, and if it was, then they're just as incompetent as they are now.

Those moments are all minor and are hardly noticeable at all.  Maybe the choices made in this game will be brought forward in another game and we will see it there, but there is no guarantee that there will be another game or if their is that it will have the same protagonist.  Bioware said that this was supposed be played as a stand alone game.  So that is how I played it.  I tired like hell to piss everybody off and only did one loyalty mission and still it made little difference.

You say the old system was too linear, this is just as linear.  Your only given an illusion of choice and/or consequence.

This is a general reply to anyone who disagrees with me on this subject. Your opinions are valid (if they're not just the same old bullshit bullet points from bandwagon "reviews," but are instead your own opinions formed by actually playing and thinking about the game) and I'm not trying to say otherwise. Perhaps give a different perspective so people can see a different viewpoint, and see if it changes their mind or at least lets them look at the game differently. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just offering that other perspective.


This is a game about exploration and discovery. It's always been a "journey over destination" game. Your choices and decisions DO affect the game. Saying otherwise is simply wrong. It may not change the game in ways you want them to, but they do change each playthrough. The journey itself changes, at least in terms of Ryder's motivations and how he/she perceives this new "home" we're discovering.

If you really think about it, though, the OT wasn't much different in that regard, if you simplify it as much as many people are simplifying ME:A's choices. Noveria: There are 3 separate ways I can think of off the top of my head to get out of the port on Noveria...but they all lead the same place, with a few lines of dialogue changing. The Rachni decision plays out the same...either choice you make, the Rachni queen disappears from the game and there are no further interactions with her. And ultimately, the difference is moot, because ME3 fucked that choice all KINDA ways up.

In terms of choosing your Ryder's view on things, you get as much freedom as Shepard did, just they play out in more subtle ways. The outcomes aren't much different though. Yeah, you can be a dick to some people in the MET, but it ultimately doesn't change anything. Ryder has the same kinds of opportunities to differentiate himself from other Ryders, it's just in the subtle ways you respond to crew and other NPC's.

I will never say that there weren't missed opportunities in ME:A for more aggressive conversation options, or other interrupts. Kadara was a REALLY good place for more of that kinda thing. But, I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, saying that the things we do don't matter in ME:A is just plain dumb. It's different than the OT, but no less present.

Split plotlines are great if you don't plan on a sequel, or render the split ultimately inconsequential.

There are a few possibilities to get renegade... like choosing to let an angara woman torture a kett if you believe theres a chance she'll learn where her family was taken ... but they are hard to find. Making a character feel different takes time, you need to remember where those quests are hidden, avoid the pointless ones, etc. And its doesnt even make a diffrence on the story, its just for a chance to roleplay. it kinda sucks having to wade through tasks to find opportunities to roleplay.

Ive never been a big renegade player in the MET, rather some sort of paragon with nicely placed renegade moves depending on the motivations of that particular shep (never felt like I had to keep things color-coded).

To me, the P/R system lets you project your motives, how you fit in the world (even if the mission stays the same) more clearly. You could be a dick, but ppl could also be mad at you for it. Where the 'mood' system gives more choices that get similar responses overall. At the end of the game, youre not more recognized as a 'scientific thinker' than as a 'casual easy going dude' even by your crew who are the closest to you.

In regard to the original trilogy, paragon = good, renegade = bad.
MEA basically allows Ryder's personality to be shaped using responses to conversation instead of explicitly binding it to the choices, but not in the strict way as DA2 did.
SAM is also shaped by Ryder's choices/personality and you can track Ryder's personality in the Codex.

The Kett fill the role of the conquerors, Pathfinders supposed to make a new habitable and safe home, which is quite difficult if you piss off everyone.
Also there are quite a few "renegade" options, if you bother with side stuff, can't remember them all.

Hydroponics protest.
Military/Science outpost.
Reyes/Sloane.
Vehn Terev.
Ancient AI.
Primus.
Exaltation base and Cardinal.
Continue torturing the Kett.
The water supply on Elaaden.
You can pretend everything is fine during Keri's interviews.
Mission about mind control on Kadara with 3 outcomes.
You can let the Outcasts/Collective continue to beat people.
Kadara Contagion mission.
Krogan colony and Elaaden outpost.

Just a few i remember.