Aller au contenu

"Decisions" from a non metagaming perspective debate.


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
253 réponses à ce sujet

#76
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Shandepared wrote...

1. I already gave a very serious and long-winded answer on page 2. Go read it.

2. Anyway, fine. If that's how people want to rolelpay their Shepard then that's fine. Nothing I can say to argue with that except that I think that Shepard is a fool.


1. Oh, I read it, believe me. Perhaps you should too instead of acting like an ass. None of it really addresses the fact that he is free to make any decisions he wants based on his Shepard's personality, logical or not. I also notice you spouting this 'crap' about how the only logical solution is to protect Tali. Because she has to be focused! There cannot be any other possible way to get deal with the Quarian problem, am I right? Your "serious" post is nothing more than a rant on how anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Congratulations.

2. Well, you are certainly free to act the part of the troll. But I just find it hysterical how quick you are to call his Shepard a 'fool'. Sometimes people act like fools in real life for a variety of reasons: love, vengance, family, whatever. But if that's really all you have to contribute, you can go now.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 avril 2010 - 03:41 .


#77
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages

Shandepared wrote...

Anyone who disagrees with me about anything is inherently wrong and probably not very intelligent.


I disagree. Oh - look! My IQ just dropped thirty points and I've suddenly developed a strange fondness for George W.!

Modifié par Nightwriter, 04 avril 2010 - 03:40 .


#78
Bigdoser

Bigdoser
  • Members
  • 2 575 messages
Your there for Tali everything else is secondary imo I would encourage the qurians towards peace when hiding the data.

#79
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*

Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
  • Guests

thedoncarnage wrote...
Letting the Rachni Queen live - I let her live. She's just one alien. Regardless of how fast Rachni breed it would take centuries to restore their empire. And if she really has peaceful intentions it could only help against the Reapers.

I tended to agree with most of your decisions in some fashion or another in your post.

What about the long term situation with the Rachni though?  Worth the risk?

#80
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*

Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
  • Guests

meatbag titan wrote...
Just out of curiosity, what happens if you didn't save the council in ME2... they seemed to have such a minor (and obnoxious as always) cameo for ME2 when I saved them. I feel like it's the right choice for earning humanity's place, but man that's a big bunch of ingrates if I've ever seen one

Frankly not much.  You don't talk to the new council.  You only talk to Udina and Anderson.  You get treated a little different from a few aliens on the Citadel.  Other than that, I don't think there is much anything else. 

#81
Collider

Collider
  • Members
  • 17 165 messages
The Rachni have only thus shown aggression. Why believe the Queen?

#82
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Collider wrote...

The Rachni have only thus shown aggression. Why believe the Queen?


Being a paragon means looking for a greater good and having the ability to see the best in others. It's definitely controversial. It means you can once again find yourself stabbed in the back. But Paragons are supposed to be willing to look past that. They're not the best example of 'logical' thinkers. But when their results do pay off, you'll notice they're almost always better than the Renegade alternative, which typically involve a direct cost/benefit relationship.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 avril 2010 - 03:53 .


#83
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*

Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
  • Guests

Nu-Nu wrote...
Saving the Council - they're living beings too, they deserve the right to live as much as humans too.

What about the threat from Sovereign though.

#84
Collider

Collider
  • Members
  • 17 165 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Collider wrote...

The Rachni have only thus shown aggression. Why believe the Queen?


Being a paragon means looking for a greater good and having the ability to see the best in others. It's definitely controversial. It means you can once again find yourself stabbed in the back. But Paragons are supposed to be willing to look past that. They're not the best example of 'logical' thinkers. But when their results do pay off, you'll notice they're almost always better than the Renegade alternative.

That's metagaming though =p It's true that the renegade decisons tend to yield worse results.

#85
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages
I was wary when Shiala emerged from the Thorian after it died, but as she began to speak I felt
as though I were being given the opportunity
to find out she was something less than an absolute villain in league with Saren.

I felt the same way with the rachni queen. Up until then I'd been taught to see the rachni as evil, but I was given the opportunity to discover that this might be wrong. Shiala, the rachni queen, they both made me wonder if I might actually be killing an innocent. That weighed heavily on me.

#86
ATKT

ATKT
  • Members
  • 156 messages

Collider wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Collider wrote...

The Rachni have only thus shown aggression. Why believe the Queen?


Being a paragon means looking for a greater good and having the ability to see the best in others. It's definitely controversial. It means you can once again find yourself stabbed in the back. But Paragons are supposed to be willing to look past that. They're not the best example of 'logical' thinkers. But when their results do pay off, you'll notice they're almost always better than the Renegade alternative.

That's metagaming though =p It's true that the renegade decisons tend to yield worse results.


From metagaming point of view: Since Bioware can't "punish" the paragon players, the paragon option will ALWAYS be better than the renegade option. The only satisfaction renegade players get is the sheer hilarity of some of the things they say, and the warm feeling you get when you know you made the best decision within context.

Realistically, though, paragons would probably be taken advantage of much more. Theoretically, as it was originally explained to me, renegades take a hard line and keep it, although Bioware just made renegade mean galactic a-hole.

#87
Guest_Shandepared_*

Guest_Shandepared_*
  • Guests

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

1. Oh, I read it, believe me. Perhaps you should too instead of acting like an ass. None of it really addresses the fact that he is free to make any decisions he wants based on his Shepard's personality, logical or not. I also notice you spouting this 'crap' about how the only logical solution is to protect Tali. Because she has to be focused! There cannot be any other possible way to get deal with the Quarian problem, am I right? Your "serious" post is nothing more than a rant on how anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Congratulations.


...and without meta-gaming there is no logical reason to make any of those choices. I stand by that.

BaladasDamnevanni wrote...

2. Well, you are certainly free to act the part of the troll. But I just find it hysterical how quick you are to call his Shepard a 'fool'. Sometimes people act like fools in real life for a variety of reasons: love, vengance, family, whatever. But if that's really all you have to contribute, you can go now.


That doesn't make him any less a fool.

#88
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Collider wrote...

That's metagaming though =p It's true that the renegade decisons tend to yield worse results.


lmao You are definitely correct in that regard, although I didn't necessarily mean it just in the context of Mass Effect but in terms of how the two styles are different. Renegades typically illustrate the 'ends justify the means' idea. They make a definite sacrifice for what they see to be a clear-cut reward/goal. Paragons don't typically follow this approach. They risk greater losses in exchange for a potentially greater outcome.

"Would you sacrifice one person to save five?" is a good example of this. A renegade would say 'yes'. The one person dies on the understanding that the other five live. A paragon would say 'no' probably looking for an alternative approach. Worst case scenario is that all 6 are dead. Best case scenario is everyone lives because they chose not to make a sacrifice.

#89
Collider

Collider
  • Members
  • 17 165 messages
I just wish that more renegade decisions will end up with better results. Not necessarily that any paragon options will be bad, just would like ME3 to steer away from paragon = good, correct choice, renegade = bad, wrong choice.



I play as myself and I end up as a paragade. I don't choose paragon or renegade options because they paragon or renegade, even though I'm punished in game for it (charm/intimidate).

#90
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Shandepared wrote...

1....and without meta-gaming there is no logical reason to make any of those choices. I stand by that.

2. That doesn't make him any less a fool.


1. You keep throwing that word around. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Meta-gaming requires that you use a line of thinking outside of the game world in making a decision. "I'm going to keep Wrex alive on Virmire so I can see him in ME2!" is meta-gaming. Shepard is not aware of any of these actions or the future. But characters do not always act logically. . That someone chooses to save the Council does not mean they are meta-gaming. It means for one reason or another their character's personality is such that they would not choose to allow the deaths of the Council members. Explain why this is meta-gaming if you'd be so kind.

2. And it doesn't make it any less his right to do it. The best stories are not always those where everyone acts logically, you see. If everyone acted like cold, heartless robots it would take the human elements out of story. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that your hard-lined stance on why it's only right to save the Collector Base is extremely narrow and disappointing from someone whose posts I'd come to respect.

#91
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages
Are we really saying gamers will ever really be able to play without metagaming whatsoever? So many of us do it, and most of the time it's almost involuntary.

I really can't pretend that in ME1 I don't always make sure to buy all ten grenade slot upgrades in anticipation of the Feros mission, or that in DA:O I don't make sure to save up the first ten garnets I find for future quest use. You just do it.

If you don't metagame whatsoever - as in, don't even pretend that this is even a game - you wouldn't make most of the paragon decisions you make. You only make them now because you trust that this is a game where positive actions likely result in positive outcomes, and that good things are achievable. There is a level of safety in this, a level of trust we invest in Bioware.

If you pretend the game is completely and absolutely real, and that all your choices are as serious as real life decisions bringing real life consequences, is there even any point in arguing paragon vs. renegade at all?

#92
Jonathan Shepard

Jonathan Shepard
  • Members
  • 2 056 messages
Letting Shiala go- Because she seemed pretty sincere, and knowing she lets you decide her fate, it's really not hard to give her a second chance. If she screws up, I'm sure Shepard (if I were him) would've made sure Lizbeth would take care of the issue.
Letting Rana Thanoptis go- Because I didn't think she would actually survive Virmire...
Saving the Council- Well, they do have our most powerful warship... we still take some of the Geth out too, after all.
Destroy the Collector Base- Unjustifiable. Unless you count the possiblity of indoctrination tech aboard the station. Hope Bioware doesn't go there though- that would make it so Shep's whole team was indoctrinated. And the only way to wave THAT off is-- THE WIZARD DID IT.
Letting the Rachni Queen live- I'm pretty sure giant bugs wouldn't really be able to colonize at a fast enough rate to be a real threat anytime soon like they used to be, and we still have the Krogan. This was tough for me. I always just felt it was right to save the queen, if not necessarily smart.
Hiding the evidence at Tali's trial- Because she's my friend. And Shepard's the best space lawyer ever.
Rewriting the Geth Heretics- Because Legion's on your side. If this works, the Geth now work for you- you just turned your arch-nemesis' old army upon his former masters. Sweet.

Modifié par Jonathan Shepard, 04 avril 2010 - 04:35 .


#93
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Collider wrote...

I just wish that more renegade decisions will end up with better results. Not necessarily that any paragon options will be bad, just would like ME3 to steer away from paragon = good, correct choice, renegade = bad, wrong choice.

I play as myself and I end up as a paragade. I don't choose paragon or renegade options because they paragon or renegade, even though I'm punished in game for it (charm/intimidate).


Oh, I definitely agree with you here. The truth is sometimes renegade will pay off even if their methods aren't desirable. Instead, Bioware seems to resort to the Kotor stand-by where Renegade=Dark Side and your only purpose is to cause misery. I would love to see them create more successful Renegade solutions than just 'everyone dies'.

#94
thedoncarnage

thedoncarnage
  • Members
  • 86 messages

JohnnyDollar wrote...

thedoncarnage wrote...
Letting the Rachni Queen live - I let her live. She's just one alien. Regardless of how fast Rachni breed it would take centuries to restore their empire. And if she really has peaceful intentions it could only help against the Reapers.

I tended to agree with most of your decisions in some fashion or another in your post.

What about the long term situation with the Rachni though?  Worth the risk?


I'd say it's worth the risk. Yes, the Rachni could turn hostile after rebuilding their empire. But my immediate goal is stopping the Reapers. Any war with the Rachni would most likely occur years, if not generations, after the situation with the Reapers has been dealt with.

As someone else mentioned in this thread: a galaxy in chaos is a better home to return to than no galaxy at all.

#95
Jonathan Shepard

Jonathan Shepard
  • Members
  • 2 056 messages

Nightwriter wrote...

Are we really saying gamers will ever really be able to play without metagaming whatsoever? So many of us do it, and most of the time it's almost involuntary.

I really can't pretend that in ME1 I don't always make sure to buy all ten grenade slot upgrades in anticipation of the Feros mission, or that in DA:O I don't make sure to save up the first ten garnets I find for future quest use. You just do it.

If you don't metagame whatsoever - as in, don't even pretend that this is even a game - you wouldn't make most of the paragon decisions you make. You only make them now because you trust that this is a game where positive actions likely result in positive outcomes, and that good things are achievable. There is a level of safety in this, a level of trust we invest in Bioware.

If you pretend the game is completely and absolutely real, and that all your choices are as serious as real life decisions bringing real life consequences, is there even any point in arguing paragon vs. renegade at all?


Actually, that's what I loved about DA:O. I had no friggin' idea what would happen. I let the blood mage in redcliffe go, thinking that was the nice thing to do... and would you look at that? I had to slay a child. Man, that part left me depressed. I think getting rid of a morality meter, and giving all party members approval meters is definitely the way to go. It makes meta-gaming less likely, and really? Dragon Age in my opinion really beats any part of Mass Effect when it comes to emotional engagement.

It's kind of a pity really, since that wasn't the point of it, like it was supposed to be with Mass Effect.

#96
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Nightwriter wrote...

If you pretend the game is completely and absolutely real, and that all your choices are as serious as real life decisions bringing real life consequences, is there even any point in arguing paragon vs. renegade at all?


Agreed. Keeping with this, if the game were absolutely real I'm curious how many would really be so quick to kill potential innocence. Death doesn't always weigh so easily on the conscience.

#97
Internet Kraken

Internet Kraken
  • Members
  • 734 messages

Collider wrote...

Leader. It was just Rael and some scientists.




What I meant was that at least one of the admirals has committed many crimes to further his agenda, and considering he was able to do so in secret, there's no guarantee the other admirals (like Xen), can't do the same.



They already know the consequences, unless they have forgotten their history, which they haven't. They already know that the Geth have beaten them. They already knew that trying to control them has it's own consequences and risks - the Quarians trying to control the Geth is the very reason why they rebelled in the first place.




Evidently they don't otherwise Raels' research would have never occurred in the first place. If he tried to do that right after the Morning War he would be called crazy. But now after 300 years the Quarian's have forgotten how dangerous the Geth can really be.



I disagree. There was nothing to suggest from the research that the battle with the Geth was foolish. Basically what happened was that the geth parts reanimated and they attacked. The Quarians will not gather from Rael's research that the Geth want to be peaceful, which is the entire reason why their conflict with the Geth is foolish. They already thought that Tali brought Geth parts on the Alarei and the Geth reanimated themselves that way. They already know this stuff.




Oh I'm sorry, I guess what I was saying there wasn't clear. I wasn;t trying to suggest that this would make them realize that the Geth are peacful. What I was saying that they will realize their fight against the Geth is foolish becuase they are far to powerful for them to conquer.



Or it could further the war if information is yielded by the research. If Rael's research yields technology that better damages Geth shields, what do you think they are going to do with it? Nothing?




That is one possibility. But you seem to be suggesting that hiding the evidence will somehow magically mean the admirals don't find it. I thought that they were going to find it anyways, and that revealing the information just makes the Quarian public aware of what is going on. I thought that either way the research's results will reach the admirals



How would the attack not be seen as aggression either way? Even when the Geth are fully capable of doing so, they did not attempt to negotiate with the Quarians, they simply attacked in surprise.





That really does not make sense. The Quarians already in all circumstances have been treated hostile by the Geth, the Geth attacking the Quarians is nothing new. They lost nearly everyone on Haestrom, it is not as if the Heretics are only attacking out of self defense. Of course the Heretic Geth are going to attack if parts that can reanimate are brought on board.




Sorry, I forgot about some of the details of the mission when I typed that up, a silly mistake on my part. You're completley right with these two points. Though that still doesn't change my opinion on revealing the evidence.



Shandepared wrote...





Anyone who disagrees with me about anything is inherently wrong and probably not very intelligent.




That kind of outlook is pretty narrow-minded, no offense. If you automatically dismiss someone else's opinion as wrong, how do you learn new things?



How would anyone come to that conclusion? It isn't as if the geth invaded the fleet. The only thing anyone would know is that studying geth is dangerous, which they'll see either way. Considering the nature of the politics involved it is not that surprising that bringing forth the evidence results in the fleet splitting up. Though to be fair I don't think many people, including myself, would have predicted that outcome.






See the above. I made a stupid mistake when attempting to recall the details of the mission and hence screwed up my post. Also I want to thank both of you for offering me additional perspectives on the trial. I now see why someone would choose to hide it for reasons other than being selfish from a non-metagaming perspective.


#98
Collider

Collider
  • Members
  • 17 165 messages
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...
Are we really saying gamers will ever really be able to play without metagaming whatsoever?[/quote]
...yes? It's very possible if you roleplay as some character you thought up before hand, right off the bat. Or roleplay at all. It can be harder or easier after playing the game and discovering the consequences of these actions.

[quote]If you don't metagame whatsoever - as in, don't even pretend that this is even a game - you wouldn't make most of the paragon decisions you make. [/quote]
????

You only make them now because you trust that this is a game where positive actions likely result in positive outcomes, and that good things are achievable. There is a level of safety in this, a level of trust we invest in Bioware.[/quote]
...or because your character is most in tune with the paragon choices? Anyone can play as the archetypal paladin, as horribly bland as that is.

[quote]If you pretend the game is completely and absolutely real, and that all your choices are as serious as real life decisions bringing real life consequences, is there even any point in arguing paragon vs. renegade at all?
[/quote]
No one is pretending that the game is absolutely real, lol. You can roleplay as a Shepard who only knows stuff within the game's context though. We can still argue about the decisions in the game, even though Dragon Age is in some cases better with the gray shades. Most of the paragon choices tend towards non aggression and trying to save everyone whereas the renegade choices are more ends to the means, both of which are morally gray to me.

#99
lastpawn

lastpawn
  • Members
  • 746 messages
A good topic. Might I add another one, particularly relevant to these boards?

Choosing to sleep with Tali or not, given that the outcome could jeopardize the mission and/or kill her.

#100
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*

Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
  • Guests

thedoncarnage wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

thedoncarnage wrote...
Letting the Rachni Queen live - I let her live. She's just one alien. Regardless of how fast Rachni breed it would take centuries to restore their empire. And if she really has peaceful intentions it could only help against the Reapers.

I tended to agree with most of your decisions in some fashion or another in your post.

What about the long term situation with the Rachni though?  Worth the risk?


I'd say it's worth the risk. Yes, the Rachni could turn hostile after rebuilding their empire. But my immediate goal is stopping the Reapers. Any war with the Rachni would most likely occur years, if not generations, after the situation with the Reapers has been dealt with.

As someone else mentioned in this thread: a galaxy in chaos is a better home to return to than no galaxy at all.

So there really is no end goal to your decision then?  Your basically just saying the the risk in near term is nearly nonexistent and lets give them a chance?  So it is more of a moral choice versus a strategic choice?  Or are you hoping on them somehow providing real help as allies against the Reapers in the near term?