904 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Developers from BioWare have stated themselves that they're not trying to "punish" anyone, just make the story arch based on the player's decisions.

So, really. Stop whining about punishments.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lack of content? There's a easy solution to that. Stop killing off characters.

That's the logical equivalent of 'if you're complaining, don't play the game,' or even 'stop whining and shut up.'

There's another, more sensible easy solution for the problem of lopsided content, and that's not to make a game with such. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Nashiktal wrote...

I think Bioware and fans are putting far too much value on the position of the wheel.

I can't remember who said it, but the person that said true renegades have blue in their bar was right. P and R just can't be properly measured with a simple top/down system in the wheel.

Honestly renegades don't lack in content, only those who kill characters lack in content. (Which is kind of the point. The very fact you have removed someone from the game is a *reward* in itself) The only problem is that the choice to kills someone is at the bottom of the wheel, and as such considered *renegade* outside of considering the context.

I disagree: the vast majority of the kill-character choices are distinctly Paragon/Renegade choices, not least because they award significant Paragon/Renegade points for doing so.

Yet, in few cases does the killing of a character actually justify no equivalent content, because the content of each reoccuring character itself is arbitrary, and so any equivalent could be raised. In some cases this is because there are alternative existing characters who could return instead: in others, other mediums of recognition.

Killing off the Paragon Council does not, in any sense, require that there be no Renegade Council to address Shepard. Even without extensive exposure, the new alternative Council could easily be created.

Killing Shiala doesn't require (from a writing perspective) the absence of a Feros cameo: the non-killable Elizabeth, who shared much of the same motivation and dedication to helping the colonists, could have filled Shiala's role completely.

Killing the Rachni Queen does not foreclose an equivalent conversation on Illium, only with some Krogan or Noveria executive thanking you for keeping the Rachni. Gianna Parsini isn't required to be the quest-giver on Illium either, when it would  be so easy to justify the (again, non-killable) Lorik to appear in her place.


Besides the design criticsims at choosing to make killable-characters a significant conveyer of cameo content, in many respects they don't even prohibit alternative content at all.

[crimzontearz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lack of content? There's a easy solution to that. Stop killing off characters.

That's the logical equivalent of 'if you're complaining, don't play the game,' or even 'stop whining and shut up.'

There's another, more sensible easy solution for the problem of lopsided content, and that's not to make a game with such. 

well uhm...

there is a difference. If you are being a renegade, aside for when renegade just means practical, you are being a borderline sociopathic d****bag who kills first and asks questions later. If you keep killing things off, being a jerk, kicking people while they are down, blowing habitats and saving spacepoerts what do you really think Bioware could do to remind you of such decisions aside for little bits in the news and the occasional person telling "YOU ASS****..you let my father die" or some such thing? Would they be as satisfying as Rana asking for you help for instance?

just out of curiosity what would be your idea on handling such things?

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

metagaming morality pansies always win the day in video games

Why is it so often bl**dy assumed that just because someone with strong moral standards is meta gaming? That p*sses me off...<_<...

It's the part where EVERYTHING turns out and perfect, no matter what, that's metagame-y. Always pick the most paragon option, and things will always work out, perfectly, with the least consequences possible while also maintaining the highest morality. Really, what's the point of choice in Mass Effect? It may as well be KOTOR, where Dark Side choices were really just there for non-canon trolling lulz, rather than as a legitimate path.

Yep, like how it's demoralizing to choose to sacrifice the council thinking it's the best practical choice only to see that you can save them AND destroy Sovereign with minimal losses by choosing Paragon. Nobody ends up caring that you sacrificed human lives to save them either.

Then you have other cases like with saving the Rachni Queen where Wrex completely forgets about it and no Krogan even complains that Shepard basically pissed on the graves of their ancestors by doing that.

Seboist, Rojahar....I can more than understand the points you are both making and have agreed all along with those issues.....What I was getting p*ssed at is personal gamer attacks, it's the way the game is set up, rage on the game not the gamer..... The first time I played ME1 & 2...I was also very new to gaming...I had no idea that paragon was an "I win" button, I stressed and agonized over every decision, waiting to be bitten in the a**...paragon Shep is naive and doesn't ask enough questions...with some I just didn't like the alternative choices or dialog, didn't feel right to me, so had to choose as close to what I would choose as allowed and other choices, were the choices I would have made in those situations and how I would see it myself.....That is not meta gaming, I was role playing.

[Golden Owl]

Seboist wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

metagaming morality pansies always win the day in video games

Why is it so often bl**dy assumed that just because someone with strong moral standards is meta gaming? That p*sses me off...<_<...

It's the accusation thrown out by some extremist Renegade players that Paragon decisions are stupid and Paragon players merely pick them because they know the game won't make them pay for said stupidity.  Now while letting career criminals run free because they pinky swore not to be a nuisance again doesn't strike me as the most intelligent of options I wouldn't consider it stupid, admittedly with one exception these criminals aren't particularly dangerous.  As for the decisions that actually matter (those that have the potential to effect the plot of the game) I think Bioware did a great job of making them each equally reasonable dependent on your (or your Shepard's) value system.

The problem is they didn't do such a good job carrying that over into ME2.  If we look at the Renegade outcomes (and I love how Bioware did the Renegade outcomes) we get the desired outcome of our decisions as well as an undesired or unexpected outcome.  With the Council we ensured the defeat of Sovereign, saved human lives, increased humanity's power, whatever your reasons may have been we got it, but as a result the aliens are hostile not only to Shepard but all humanity making it hard for the Alliance to convince them to work together and causing problems in interspecies communities (like the Citadel).

That is good storytelling.

Paragons however don't appear to have the same balance.  Paragons get their desired outcome but don't seem to suffer the exclusive undesired, unexpected one (Council not helping doesn't count as that's universal).  Council again you save the Council, civilians, DA, help strengthen galactic unity, etc. whatever you wanted out of it chances are you got, but then you don't see anything go wrong from your choice.  There's no indication that humanity is any worse off for the loss of 8 cruisers, nobody back home seems bothered that human lives were thrown away to save a bunch of alien bureaucrats, etc.

That is bad storytelling, when every choice you make turns out perfectly you rob the choice of value or weight.

Someone With Mass wrote...
Why should the human council waste their time with Shepard?

Because they owe him/her their jobs?/joke

Yeah, the Paragon outcomes don't have anything to get the player to wonder "Was it worth it?" in the same way the Renegade ones do.

In the case of Shepard saving the council he should have ended up facing a relative of an Alliance serviceman who died on one of those eight cruisers who feels bitter and betrayed over it.

I agree and went into ME2 expecting back lash, at least some angry comments...My choice to save the council was not for paragon points, I took that decision seriously, I chose to spare them for political and defense reasons...won't go into it here.

[Someone With Mass]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That's the logical equivalent of 'if you're complaining, don't play the game,' or even 'stop whining and shut up.'

There's another, more sensible easy solution for the problem of lopsided content, and that's not to make a game with such. 

Here's the thing, though:

No-one is forcing them to kill characters. They can only blame themselves if they kill off a certain character and then start whining because that action didn't give them "extra content", even though that's a great oxymoron.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Again though, there's a difference between bad reactions and a lack of content. Someone could've sought revenge against a Renegade or attracted shady individuals to do missions for them. There could've been a whole host of "negative" outcome without limiting content so I'd say that point's pretty moot.

[DPSSOC]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Developers from BioWare have stated themselves that they're not trying to "punish" anyone, just make the story arch based on the player's decisions.

So, really. Stop whining about punishments.

There's what they're trying to do and what they actually did.  The only reason it's viewed as punishing is because while the Renegade players get sensible negative reprecussions for their actions (dead people don't show up, aliens aren't happy about the Council, etc) there is no Paragon equivalent.  Where are the people outraged about sacrificing human lives for alien bureaucrats, where are the politicians and military leaders gunning for your head for bringing back the Rachni, where are the reports of dangerous criminals you let run free causing harm (Balak springs to mind).  Where are the negative reprecussions Paragon players have to accept for their gains?*

I play Renegon, I accept that my actions do not make for a happy universe, and gladly accept the consequences of my actions in light of the gains I made.  Stack one against the other I come out ahead.  Paragons/Paragades don't get that, there are no negative reprecussions to your actions; sensible or otherwise.

That's what the problem is, that's what Renegade players are so frustrated about, and I don't understand why Paragons aren't.  You've created a dream world where nothing goes wrong and that's just boring.  Where's the conflict, where's the dilemna, where's the difficulty when everything goes right?

*If you can answer this question for the major decisions (Council, Rachni only ones we've gotten any feedback on) I at least will stop "whining" as you put it.

[Seboist]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Yeah, the Paragon outcomes don't have anything to get the player to wonder "Was it worth it?" in the same way the Renegade ones do.

That's not true. Al'Jilani does a good job of making Shepard justify why it was worth it and points out that even the Paragon path required a sacrifice. I really like that. All I'd change is to add a few more humans who were similarily hostile (and are friendly in a Renegade universe). Perhaps one of these humans would be an established character (maybe Admiral Hackett). I'd also have the human Council meet with Shepard.

Al' Jilani bickers with Shepard regardless. That's another "false outcome" like the Turian councilor scolding Shepard over the Rachni Queen decision no matter what.

But yeah they should have done what you suggested.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's the thing, though:

No-one is forcing them to kill characters. They can only blame themselves if they kill off a certain character and then start whining because that action didn't give them "extra content", even though that's a great oxymoron.

Killing a character doesn't mean that content about that decision doesn't deserve to exist, killing somebody suddenly doesn't make people forget that you killed them or that they existed.

Sorry if we demand for equality in terms of content? I don't see why you're against equality between both "morality" bars if it's only going to add more content for everybody.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 24 mai 2011 - 01:42 .

[Heimdall]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killing off the Paragon Council does not, in any sense, require that there be no Renegade Council to address Shepard. Even without extensive exposure, the new alternative Council could easily be created.

Killing Shiala doesn't require (from a writing perspective) the absence of a Feros cameo: the non-killable Elizabeth, who shared much of the same motivation and dedication to helping the colonists, could have filled Shiala's role completely.

  Problem is, if they did what you write here instead, Bioware would just get even more complaints from people about how their choices don't matter.  Really, the ideal has renegade and paragon choices with very differant but equal results.

[GenericPlayer2]

Al-Jilani is a character that no one takes seriously. I am pretty sure everyone has assaulted her at least once. So using her as an example of how paragon shep is asked to answer for saving the council is not really valid.

[Golden Owl]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Al-Jilani is a character that no one takes seriously. I am pretty sure everyone has assaulted her at least once. So using her as an example of how paragon shep is asked to answer for saving the council is not really valid.

Though I was suprised myself when I heard she trashes renShep too....No, not everyone has assaulted her Generic...:-)....there are a few my Shep would like to assault, she isn't one of them, she's just an idiot and easy to ignore.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killing off the Paragon Council does not, in any sense, require that there be no Renegade Council to address Shepard. Even without extensive exposure, the new alternative Council could easily be created.

Killing Shiala doesn't require (from a writing perspective) the absence of a Feros cameo: the non-killable Elizabeth, who shared much of the same motivation and dedication to helping the colonists, could have filled Shiala's role completely.

  Problem is, if they did what you write here instead, Bioware would just get even more complaints from people about how their choices don't matter.  Really, the ideal has renegade and paragon choices with very differant but equal results.

Having different outcomes has nothing to do with the amount of content available.    I think doing bad things should generate bad results, but that doesn't mean there should be less content for it.  That's not a reward in any sense of the word (unless they hate playing the game).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 24 mai 2011 - 02:11 .

[Moiaussi]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
What are the 'negative consequences' of renegade choices? What choices either way really affected ME2?

I am not going to spend an hour hunting down and naming each individual choice so that you can dismiss it with a single sentence - I am not an internet noob.  You know they are there, so stop acting otherwise.

-NSB

No, frankly I don't know they are there. Renegades don't have a significantly harder game or for that matter a significantly easier game. The Council is just as useless if they live as if they die. The Rachni promise support, but haven't actually provided any yet. Helena Blake either reforms or works for Aria or is dead, and none of those outcomes makes any difference. A dead Wrex is replaced by Wreav, who is just as unhelpful as a live Wrex. Garrus reverts to renegade no matter whether coached to paragon or renegade in ME1.

We are working with Cerberus in ME2, no matter how we felt about them in ME1.

Paragons might prove to be 'more rewarded' in ME3, but it is too soon to judge since ME3 isn't out yet.

If you are not an internet noob then you must realize that simply saying something is so is not going to convince anyone. Put up or back down.

[Mufasa92]

Honestly I don't think there is enough of a difference between Paragon and Renegade. I guess that since Shepherd is a hero they can't make him too "bad guyish" but he seems like a diet badass to me as a Renegade. I guess I feel that way since in DA:O being a "renegade" actually caused you to do some really effed up things.

Modifié par Mufasa92, 24 mai 2011 - 02:23 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

laecraft wrote...

Really? In ME2, your persuasive technique depends directly on your morality bar. To max out your opportunities, you have to max out your morality bar. And if killing characters is attributed to Renegade path...guess what? To max out your efficiency as a speaker, you are forced to kill the characters. The only other alternative is not to BE Renegade. Or be a Renagade only partially, and pray that when it comes to resolving the conflicts on the ship, you'll have enough points for it.

The compaint seems to be about the fact that the path with the worst consequences is attributed to Renegade choices. Unethical decisions don't necessary produce the worst outcomes. The game fails to reflect that.

I hope that in ME3 the extra morality-dependent dialogues choices are a little easier to unlock.  To get everyone through the suicide mission as a renegade its almost mandatory that Shepard be angry yet callous at all times.  The bars in ME1 were a little more forgiving of deviation from the path.  Bioware really does kind of force players who want to play renegade and reap the full benefits to kill characters when they have the option.

[Xilizhra]

That's what the problem is, that's what Renegade players are so frustrated about, and I don't understand why Paragons aren't. You've created a dream world where nothing goes wrong and that's just boring. Where's the conflict, where's the dilemna, where's the difficulty when everything goes right?

Why do you care about how our universes go?

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

What are the 'negative consequences' of renegade choices? What choices either way really affected ME2?

The. Lack. Of. Content.

THE LACK OF CONTENT!

THE LACK OF CONTENT

THE LACK OF CONTENT

THE LACK OF CONTENT!

How many times must this be repeated? The biggest downside to Renegade is that it doesn't import very well. That kind of spoils the most unique part of mass Effect.

See this is exactly the problem. If either side suffers a negative result from their actions, the other side cries that they are missing out on content. If they don't suffer a negative result, the other side complains that all the results are positive. It is lose lose for the writers, so we get stories where nothing matters.

You can repeat all you want but at least acknowledge the dilemma.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Again though, there's a difference between bad reactions and a lack of content. Someone could've sought revenge against a Renegade or attracted shady individuals to do missions for them. There could've been a whole host of "negative" outcome without limiting content so I'd say that point's pretty moot.

The problem with that is that a whole revenge scenario is one heck of a lot more content than someone simply sending a thank you or a cameo with a couple lines of text. It also assumes that there is someone to take revenge who is stupid enough to go up against Shepard when their friend already failed.