77 réponses à ce sujet

[FDB93]

technikr wrote...

You are right, Paragon is aligned with choices that favor ethic choices of morality and that polarization of ideas should not determine outcome, rather the complete considerations of all sides so that misunderstandings do not come from emotions nor prejudices.

Now, whether or not past paragon decisions lead to bad outcomes is content that the story writers of mass effect 3 will have to determine to us.

A 'paragon' decision made at one moment of time will not necessarily guide an outcome that upholds to a 'paragon' code.

example: I release the rachni. They flourish. They expand. As their population increases and time passes, factions within the starting population are created due to differentiating ideologies existent in their culture. One faction adopts xenophobic agendas.

Now whether or not I want scenarios of 'paragon decisions backfiring' to occur in mass effect 3? Im impartial. Let some paragon choices have bad outcomes. If they're completely consistent in the lore of the game, then so be it.

But this all depends on how Bioware has implemented their Paragon/Neutral/Renegade systems and how they've integrated it into their development policy.

Do they define Paragon as always doing the right thing? Is the right thing beneficial to shepherd? If this is true, Paragon actions that lead to paragon decisions must lead to more paragon situations in the situation of commander shepherd. This is vice-versa with renegade.

So we'd have to really establish what paragon/renegade choices mean to the mechanics of bioware's storyline progression and what were they intended as factors. Before we could begin weighing in how our choices affect the lore.

Nice analysis of the Paragon/Renagade system  I agree

[Big stupid jellyfish]

brent2605 wrote...

I think there should be some decisions that backfire for both paragon and renegade choices.

This.

Also, visa versa should also be true: several paragon AND renegade decisions must give you some advantage in ME3.

[Ryzaki]

Shavon wrote...

I'm not saying a sue is a bad character . . to an extent, a hero has to be a sue, to save the world/galaxy, whatever. I am not even saying Shepard is not a sue (of course s/he is), I just don't want people to get all up in arms about it, because people make way too big a deal of the whole concept, and often have no effing clue what they are talking about.

/done

So I had no clue what I was talking about?

The only one who made a big deal about it was..you to be frank.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 février 2011 - 12:57 .

[technikr]

In perspective of the current mass effect story, the role of commander shepherd really could not have been viable if that character didn't possess 'mary sue' characteristics.



He gets the job done.



His job is to save the universe from the reaper threat.



Or he could just go to a bar and drink away the 'nightmarish realities of the reaper threat'.



But I digress!

[Ryzaki]

Shavon wrote...

No, my comment was not even directed to you, Ryzaki!

But I was the only one who mentioned how Shep was a Sue...

[Ulzeraj]

You do not destroy the geth. If you chose to destroy the virus you'll destroy only that station and the other heretic stations continue to exist.

[Sir Kibble]

Mass Effect 2 isn't even an RPG anyway. Great shooter, but it's no Call of Duty game, not by a long shot.

[wizardryforever]

Well I suppose it depends on your definition of "backfire."  As others have said, no decision that Shepard has made has impacted Shepard personally.  This is probably because having all those actions change the direction of the game the way they logically would is very difficult to implement.  However, if you mean impact on the galaxy as a whole, the effect of each is pretty equal distribution.  Sure, you get more of a feel-good feeling from the impact of Paragon decisions, but if you read between the lines on some of the Renegade decisions, certain things may be better off.  So really I don't get this desire to have Paragon actions backfire, since to some extent they already do, just as the Renegade ones do, they just are more subtle.

As for big decisions backfiring, I don't think they should make any of them really backfire, just offer realistic consequences to both actions.  Don't punish Renegades for their paranoia anymore than you punish Paragons for their naivete.  Really, don't punish (as in, negatively affect) any actions.  I'm fine with withholding rewards, but no punishments.

[pmac_tk421]

With the rachni queens message and the way the messenger reacted i think the rachni are with you to the end.

[Ulzeraj]

I think that when she said that will join her song with ours she was referring to joining the galactic community as a whole.

[Subach_Innes]

wizardryforever wrote...

As for big decisions backfiring, I don't think they should make any of them really backfire, just offer realistic consequences to both actions.  Don't punish Renegades for their paranoia anymore than you punish Paragons for their naivete.  Really, don't punish (as in, negatively affect) any actions.  I'm fine with withholding rewards, but no punishments.

I can agree that this is probably one of the smarter ways to handle choice and consequence. I think also offering rewards that are different yet offer roughly equal benefit would be cool, too, especally regarding The Council.

However, I think dealing with negative consequences could be made fun  if they're more than simple "screw yous", but lead to interesting quest lines where you have to do your best to patch up the damage you've done and reward you for doing so.

Pure punishments should be avoided, as all they do is discourage players from fully exploring the range of choices in favor of min-maxing.

[STG]

A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in fanfiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy
for the author or reader. Perhaps the single underlying feature of all
characters described as "Mary Sues" is that they are too ostentatious
for the audience's taste, or that the author seems to favor the
character too highly. The author may seem to push how exceptional and
wonderful the "Mary Sue" character is on his or her audience, sometimes
leading the audience to dislike or even resent the character fairly
quickly; such a character could be described as an "author's pet".

[Suron]

meh it'll all be meaningless (overall) story fluff if any para/rene choices adversely affect you in ME3.



THEY. WILL. NOT. HAVE. SOME. CHOICE. YOU. MADE. A GAME. MUCH. LESS. TWO. GAMES. BACK. RUIN. ME3's. ENDING. OVERALL.



there will be no "reapers win" or "shepard dies" ONLY because you made some choice in one of the other two games over another.



if ANY rene/para choices actually have some kind of detrimental affect on the ending of ME3 it will be confined within ME3 so you're not FORCED to go back a game or two to "correct" it. BioWare would in NO WAY be dumb enough to pull some bull**** like that.

[technikr]

Suron wrote...
if ANY rene/para choices actually have some kind of detrimental affect on the ending of ME3 it will be confined within ME3 so you're not FORCED to go back a game or two to "correct" it. BioWare would in NO WAY be dumb enough to pull some bull**** like that.

You, quite bluntly, put up a valid point. Creating situations in that a mass effect 3 ending is heavily dependent on actions of the past games would frustrate player bases that chose to play the games through one session. From a gaming developer perspective, you potentially isolate a certain player demography because their experience of the mass effect trilogy was handicapped by behavioral oversights by the gaming developer.

"I played mass effect games on one playthrough. My mass effect 3 ending did not satisfy me because I did not have the intuition nor foresight to make good decisions in Mass Effect 1? Im discriminated because my playstyle doesn't allow me the privilege of having multiple saves with different factors to give the ending that I WANT?"

I can see the complaints in adopting this point of view. 

However this is all dependent on Bioware's perspective of their trilogy and their IP.

Do they treat all three games as separate entities whose story elements can be isolated?

I believe bioware has discussed this amongst themselves as they have implemented default 'new-saves' that adopt predetermined choices for their shepherd's storyline.

It is in my humble opinion that bioware's vision for the mass effect trilogy was that the story elements from the three games are to interconnect into a broader story arch. Meaning that the outcomes of mass effect 3 will in fact have extreme divulges in outcomes based on major plot decisions of the past. 

If a player elects to play a shepherd that transfers over through the games, they are electing to the system of outcomes that bioware might put in place in mass effect 3. If a player does not want to take part in such a system, then they can elect to start a new save on default set outcomes. 

All speculation and opinions on my part as I can not cite any of this. My personal conjectures were based on the impressions that I received from various mass effect 1 & 2 interviews that the idea of extremely impacting  plot outcomes are in the minds of the developers and will play its parts in the mass effect 3 finale.

Modifié par technikr, 04 février 2011 - 04:33 .

[Sajuro]

xxprokillazxx wrote...

that alot of people die in earth by destroying the collector base and losing all that technoligy.

-normandy going through FTL-
EDI: Incoming transmission from earth.
Transmission: Oh my god, they're everywhere! The bears have joined them! Agghhhh-cut to static-
-Miranda tries to say something but Garrus stops her-
-Shepard presses a few buttons-
EDI: Request denied, now setting course for Noveria

[NICKjnp]

There are no consequences in the ME universe....only e-mails.

[PrinceLionheart]

And I counter that renegades should have decisions bite them in the ass in ME3 as well. Personally I find handing the Collector base over to the Illusive Man to be just as "idealistic" as say allowing the Heretic Geth to live or freeing the Rachni. Both cases, you're shifting a power balance and putting faith in a group you have no control over.

[Ryzaki]

NICKjnp wrote...

There are no consequences in the ME universe....only e-mails.

I lol'd way harderthan I should've at this.

[Exile Isan]

Sajuro wrote...
-normandy going through FTL-
EDI: Incoming transmission from earth.
Transmission: Oh my god, they're everywhere! The bears have joined them! Agghhhh-cut to static-
-Miranda tries to say something but Garrus stops her-
-Shepard presses a few buttons-
EDI: Request denied, now setting course for Noveria

[Aedan_Cousland]

Destroying the collector base should  definitely bite Shepard in the ass. I mean come on, its ridiculous to have every Paragon option be the best choice in the fight against the Reapers. Saving the Rachni could also be a big negative. I can't really see them trying to take over the galaxy again but it would have to create alot of tension with the other races if you let them live. Especially with the Krogan, maybe they won't help you if you decide to ally with the Rachni.

Rewriting the Geth and Saving the Rachni are two of the biggest paragon decisions made in the series. Having them both backfire on Shepard would be ridiculous. One perhaps, but not both.

And I counter that renegades should have decisions bite them in the ass in ME3 as well. Personally I find handing the Collector base over to the Illusive Man to be just as "idealistic" as say allowing the Heretic Geth to live or freeing the Rachni. Both cases, you're shifting a power balance and putting faith in a group you have no control over.

Exactly.

Given Cerberus' history, what is to stop the Illusive Man from creating another Reaper, or something like it? Cerberus doesn't exactly have a good history with some of it's crackpot research projects. I could totally see the Illusive Man defending his creation of a 'shackled' Reaper to help fight the other Reapers. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that?

The right choice IMO, is to blow the base sky high and call it a day.

Anyway, I'm all for some paragon decisions backfiring on Shepard so long as some Renegade decisions also backfire.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 04 février 2011 - 06:42 .

[TexasToast712]

EternalPink wrote...

Quarrians - all go settle a new world, dismantle there fleet and destroy all there weapons in a mass tree hugging orgy - i.e useless allies in a fight

Geth - now that they've got the heretics back so theres no immediate threat to them from mechanicals and they've made nice with one organic they see how killing organics is wrong and destroy all there weapons in a electric tree hugging orgy - i.e useless allies in a fight

I like the way you think.

[Thompson family]

Re: OP

Live long enough, you usually get what you deserve. You usually wind up where the path you take leads. Fact of life.

Modifié par Thompson family, 04 février 2011 - 10:44 .