244 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Renegade Shepard's cold expediency never seems to pay off with some reduction in risk, ultimately just making him some kind of impatient jerk.

Sure it does.  There's at least one fight in ME2 that's easier if you choose to take the renegade interrupt (shooting the gas tank in Mordin's loyalty mission.)

But you're right, there needs to be some rewards for Renegade Shepard, and some of Paragon Shepard's shouldn't turn out quite as well as they do (not to say that they should fail spectacularly, but that they could result in some additional complication later on.)

[upsettingshorts]

Vaeliorin wrote...
Sure it does.  There's at least one fight in ME2 that's easier if you choose to take the renegade interrupt (shooting the gas tank in Mordin's loyalty mission.)

Interrupts almost don't count to me unless there's a Paragon as well as Renegade interrupt option for the situation, but your point is taken.

Vaeliorin wrote...
But you're right, there needs to be some rewards for Renegade Shepard, and some of Paragon Shepard's shouldn't turn out quite as well as they do (not to say that they should fail spectacularly, but that they could result in some additional complication later on.)

Some could blow up in his face in ME3.  It just hasn't happened yet.  But I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[GodWood]

Idealism needs to be punished.

[nightcobra]

GodWood wrote...

Idealism needs to be punished.

with a challenging and difficult (and i do mean difficult) battle or puzzle so that the player's skill can be taken into account to back up that idealism.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, to put it generally. I think the good path should be harder. Evil should be easy. In ME1-2, there is no appreciable difference in difficulty, so the good path (because it makes us feel better to be good) ends up being easier. Which to me cheapens the very idea of being a noble hero.

The "third way" option in the case of Connor does pull that off fairly well if you haven't cleared the Circle Tower yet (however illogical leaving Connor might be), as does the Sacred Ashes with Kolgrimm.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[nightcobra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, to put it generally. I think the good path should be harder. Evil should be easy. In ME1-2, there is no appreciable difference in difficulty, so the good path (because it makes us feel better to be good) ends up being easier. Which to me cheapens the very idea of being a noble hero.

a bad path could also be more challenging, for example:

you need money fast, and a bank/treasury has the amount you need.

doing some favors for the and excelling in diplomacy would be the high path in this case.

planning a heist with some difficult battles would be the low path.

the difficulty could be challenging in the two.

[Icinix]

I love me some good morally grey decisions, but I do like having the third option. HOWEVER, to make things interesting I would like to see some of those third options become available AFTER perhaps doing something maybe a little more questionable..



..what am I saying.

I'd hate that. I feel guilty calling an NPC a bad name.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I don't believe in "just 2 options". Never have.

Real life doesn't work that way. The more options, the better. I'd use 4 as the MINIMUM in any game decision.

And I don't have a problem with options that allow you a really good ending, just as I have nothing against options that allow you a really bad one.
The Redcliffe thing was a gamble, but one that payed off. Let's also not forget that you had to pry to get that option. Unless you looked deeper, you only got 2 options and in that case, it WAS grey morality. The third option never appeared. It rewarded those that looked for another answer, and didn't immediately accept the 2 faster methods offered.
And the first time playing, you dodn't KNOW about the outcome, so it was a risk. It wasn't a "pure white" choice, as you the player, and your PC, didn't know the outcome.
Granted, it might be more interesting if it really was a random, with different possible outcomes depending on how long you were away, but I digress.


Point is, having multipkle different hoices, of which some end up with really good results, doesn't take away from anything when playing. It only does so in hindsight (with full knowledge of the mechanics and everything), and if there is no random factor to it.

It's basicly like beign a general after the battle. Sure, now that you know where all the enemy troops were and what they were doing, you know which would have been a perfect strategy. But you didn't know that back then.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 novembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[GodWood]

It took 3 pages till someone misunderstood what 'third option' means.

Thats got to be a record.

[Vaeliorin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Well, to put it generally. I think the good path should be harder. Evil should be easy. In ME1-2, there is no appreciable difference in difficulty, so the good path (because it makes us feel better to be good) ends up being easier. Which to me cheapens the very idea of being a noble hero.

Yep, this is exactly my feelings on the matter.  There should be a "generally good results" option (because only having bad results often ends up with having a character who's forced to pick an option he'd never pick without looking for other options) but getting those "generally good results" should be more challenging then doing things the quick and dirty/evil way (much like not killing people in AP is harder than just gunning everyone down.)

[AlanC9]

What about chance? Say, if you try for the third option in Redcliffe, maybe 70% it works out, but 30% of the time the demon comes back and destroys the town before you return.

[Xewaka]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Depends. Certainly not if it's a cheap one. Cheap as in "let's go to the Tower and save everyone, thus throwing the dramatic value out the window."

I did that, fully expecting to find Redcliffe Castle in ruins at my return. I was dissapointed.

[nightcobra]

AlanC9 wrote...

What about chance? Say, if you try for the third option in Redcliffe, maybe 70% it works out, but 30% of the time the demon comes back and destroys the town before you return.

instead of random, i think it'd be better if it is calculated of how many places you stop in between, what i mean is, if you go to the circle right away the village is okay but if you go to another place before going to the circle the village is destroyed.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yes, that's what I was talking about..but the calculation should be tied to what you do.



If you don't go directly to the Mage Tower, chance of something bad happeing increases. You completed Broken Circle before Redcliffe? Chance of something bad decreases.



And something bad is not just "Redcliffe destroyed". no..It can range from a few NPC's dying to destruction of Redcliffe.

[Behindyounow]

jackkel dragon wrote...

a) kill/hurt person/group A
kill/hurt person/group B
c) screw you guys

Thats the only third option I'd like. All of the other ones just feel like an easy way out, and sometimes didn't even make sense. I mean, travelling to the Circle tower should take a couple weeks right? Plus, add in time to sort out the tower if you haven't done it before.

Thats two weeks where Redcliffe is at the mercy of Connor again. Why the hell did nothing happen?

Modifié par Behindyounow, 11 novembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[nightcobra]

Behindyounow wrote...

jackkel dragon wrote...

a) kill/hurt person/group A
kill/hurt person/group B
c) screw you guys

Thats the only third option I'd like. All of the other ones just feel like an easy way out, and sometimes didn't even make sense. I mean, travelling to the Circle tower should take a couple weeks right? Plus, add in time to sort out the tower if you haven't done it before.

Thats two weeks where Redcliffe is at the mercy of Connor again. Why the hell did nothing happen?

a couple of days to be exact, it's not that far.

[GodWood]

Behindyounow wrote...
travelling to the Circle tower should take a couple weeks right? Plus, add in time to sort out the tower if you haven't done it before.

Thats two weeks where Redcliffe is at the mercy of Connor again. Why the hell did nothing happen?

According to the game it takes a day to get to the circle from Redcliff.
So you'd be gone 2 days.

[Behindyounow]

GodWood wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...
travelling to the Circle tower should take a couple weeks right? Plus, add in time to sort out the tower if you haven't done it before.

Thats two weeks where Redcliffe is at the mercy of Connor again. Why the hell did nothing happen?

According to the game it takes a day to get to the circle from Redcliff.
So you'd be gone 2 days.

Oh, ok.

My point still stands. Look what Connor did in the one day you were at Redcliffe. If you weren't there, everyone would've been massacred.

Now you're not there for two days, with Redcliffe left with less soldiers than before.

[upsettingshorts]

Well I think when the problem with Redcliffe started it took them by surprise. I think the writers were trying to imply that the remaining Templars and militia had recovered by the time you've given the option, and "locking Connor up in some room while the heroes go to the Tower" was a perfectly legitimate alternative. I seem to recall the room where we defeat possessed Teagan being filled with armored soldiers by the time we can make that decision. 

Edit: Maybe the knights who had been recalled from their search from the Urn arrive and maintain vigil?

I just don't think they executed well enough to pull off that idea. It can very easily seem like we're just abandoning the town to a repeat of its fate, but I don't think that is intended or it would be stupid.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[nightcobra]

Behindyounow wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...
travelling to the Circle tower should take a couple weeks right? Plus, add in time to sort out the tower if you haven't done it before.

Thats two weeks where Redcliffe is at the mercy of Connor again. Why the hell did nothing happen?

According to the game it takes a day to get to the circle from Redcliff.
So you'd be gone 2 days.

Oh, ok.

My point still stands. Look what Connor did in the one day you were at Redcliffe. If you weren't there, everyone would've been massacred.

Now you're not there for two days, with Redcliffe left with less soldiers than before.

they've been holding out on a few days, and most likely the initial assault in the castle was successful because it was a surprise attack, then connor had those corpses to control and form an army. to me i think they could hold out for a few days without many casualties considering we decimated his corpse army (which was burned to dust, leaving connor no chance to resurrect them again) and now the knights are alert to the danger.

[Lurklen]

Maria Caliban wrote...
For Redcliffe, how would you feel if instead of Isidole or Conner dying, you could convince the demon to go into Jowan instead of Conner and then either kill him, imprison him, or let him go?

 This I think is what I'd want from a third option, more gray choices. The third option should be no more obvious than the first two. With the Redcliffe decision if you chose to leave Conner and head to the Circle you were warned that by leaving him the demon may become more powerful and the castle could be in greater danger.

 However this was never acted upon in the game, I see this as a mistake. What could have happened is by leaving the demon the situation became more dangerous, maybe it escaped or killed Bann Teagan or tore a hole in the veil or a dozen other things. Whatever the case there should be a price for hesitating, a compromise shouldn't always be the best outcome for everyone.Sometimes when you try to find a middle ground you just end up with enemies on all sides, that should be shown as a result of the players choice. By trying to avoid the more difficult decision you can make the problem harder to solve. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

True, but sometimes it play in the end. Thing is, you never know.



When we first made the decision in Redcliffe, we really didn't know what will happen. We were taking a risk.

I'm all for an element of chance and consequences tough.

[ScorpSt]

The third option for Redcliffe could have added other ethical problems. Sure, everyone lives, but with added consequences. Like Jowan escapes while you're getting the Circle Mages, or the Mages take Connor away from his family and you later find out (like in the epilogue) that he was made a Tranquil do to the fact that he was possessed.

[nightcobra]

ScorpSt wrote...

The third option for Redcliffe could have added other ethical problems. Sure, everyone lives, but with added consequences. Like Jowan escapes while you're getting the Circle Mages, or the Mages take Connor away from his family and you later find out (like in the epilogue) that he was made a Tranquil do to the fact that he was possessed.

it sure wasn't all rosey since even if connor becomes a mage scholar, arl eamon loses his chance to keep his descendants on power over the arling of redcliffe... according to loghain, arl eamon knew about connor being a mage and allowed isolde to carry on her plan (without her knowing).

[Fortlowe]

ScorpSt wrote...

The third option for Redcliffe could have added other ethical problems. Sure, everyone lives, but with added consequences. Like Jowan escapes while you're getting the Circle Mages, or the Mages take Connor away from his family and you later find out (like in the epilogue) that he was made a Tranquil do to the fact that he was possessed.

I like this. Though for a more weighty descision, I think the consequence of making Conner tranquil should be clear up front.