904 réponses à ce sujet

[Ashira Shepard]

Mesina2 wrote...
That's like 25th time you done that?

]

There's been a startling increase in the level of disturbing stuff I witness/read/hear lately. So yeah.

[InvincibleHero]

I play both sides and find it unrealistic they always turn out roses and bon-bons for paragons. Unrepentant life-long criminals turn out to be nice people unlike the reality of real criminals having recidivism rates well over 50%. That is some persuasion bordering on braiwashing that Shep has. Good guys in other media (especially comics and movies) often regret some quite idealistic decisions. IN Dark Knight Returns Batman saves Ras and he doesn't change.

If there is one thing that drives many interactions it is trust. People often use that agaisnt you. It only makes sense sone things backfire.

As for saying renegades should face repurcusions for what they have done. I'd say sure civil lawsuit for punching Al Jilani (never done it except by accident reload)on camera in a not so fine(idiotic IMO) moment, but not for killing a merc even as cruelly as shoving him off the building. Dead men tell no tales. Is Garrus going to testify against you. In fact, would C-sec care. In fact anything on Omega stays in Omega as Council has no jurisdiction there.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I "get" it. As a moral tool it's better to encourage people to do the idealistic thing (even if it arguably doesn't make practical sense). They may fear what image they'd have by giving benefits to decisions they mark as red.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Saph: It doesn't.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Saph: Precisely.

[DeadLetterBox]

I think part of the issue may be that the backlash for a renegade decision is immediate, whereas the backlash for paragon choices might take a while.

Zaeed? Yeah, you got his mind on the mission, but he's not going to feel like he owes you anything later. If you save the original council it's looking like they will be more likely to stand in your way than anything, and they have connections a new council does not. I think there's a good chance that a "social worker" Helena Blake is lying through her teeth to Shepard. That's always kind of been my assumption. Sort of like I assume that the looters on the mission to pick up Mordin go right back to looting the second you leave, regardless of what you say.

So, yeah, it might be that the paragon reactions get better PR (unless it's the Sirta Foundation, anyways) but crunch time isn't here yet. I bet that's when the costs start adding up.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I didn't realize Mass Effect existed to preach Bioware's ethics.

It doesn't, but to encourage Bioware's ethics, absolutely.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 13 mai 2011 - 06:43 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

This is a thing that always gets me: no, companies don't have ethics. But companies are made of people who do have ethics. Including writers. Yes, writers are a subculture more commonly associated with drinking and vice, but RPG writers are a subculture more associated with paladins and dice (and also drinking, to be fair.)

And while the theme of anything by Joss Whedon is always going to be "that one cool character arbitrarily dies," and the theme of anything set in the Warhammer universe is going to be "look, it's pointless to make any sort of effort in a universe dominated by twisted chaos," every once in a while someone gets the idea to tell a story where being a good person isn't the worst choice you can possibly make.

A friend of mine who is reading Game of Thrones for the first time confronted me with this explanation of why the books are infuriating to him:
"{George R. R. Martin seems} like he believes that anyone who does anything but looks out for their own skin will be {screwed} for it. That seems to be the constant in his books."

And this comes from a man who can roll the bones for his chaos marines all night long. Now, it may turn out that everything is just going to blow up in everyone's faces at the end of Mass Effect, and everyone will just sit in the ruins of their former hometowns cradling the bodies of their loved ones as they lift their faces to the sky and scream "why hast thou forsaken me?" But honestly, I'm hoping they'll leave that kind of thing for Dragon Age, or for people who completely fail at playing games.

In some universes, you just want to say "screw you, I'm going to go worship Slaanesh because at least then I have a chance of dying coked up in a pile of naked ladies." and that's actually the smartest choice. But not every world has to work that way.

I'm fine if the world of Mass Effect is not one of those worlds.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't like paladins either. I like chaotic good rogue-priests. Or Pixies. The paladins are metaphorical?

I guess technically I like amoral physical adepts. But the one guy who gets that reference will just tell me that that system is bad and I should feel bad. So I went with paladins.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 13 mai 2011 - 07:03 .

[GodWood]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
A friend of mine who is reading Game of Thrones for the first time confronted me with this explanation of why the books are infuriating to him:
"{George R. R. Martin seems} like he believes that anyone who does anything but looks out for their own skin will be {screwed} for it. That seems to be the constant in his books."

And that is why ASoIaF is one of my favourite series.

Cut out Daenerys and the setting is perfect.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Companies have an "image" which also suggest that they carry themselves a certain way and hold themselves to certain regards.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

GodWood wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
A
friend of mine who is reading Game of Thrones for the first time
confronted me with this explanation of why the books are infuriating to
him:
"{George R. R. Martin seems} like he believes that anyone who
does anything but looks out for their own skin will be {screwed} for it.
That seems to be the constant in his books."

And that is why
ASoIaF is one of my favourite series.

Cut out Daenerys and the setting is perfect.

I effin love the series as well. Mostly because no one is safe. I like the random arbitrariness of it all, the lack of plot armor on anyone, all that stuff.

But I also like Pratchett, where at the end of the day, being too corrupt and morally exploitative can screw you over just as badl as being too idealistic certainly will, even though the guy who runs everything is the most truly amoral glorious perfect genius ever... that doesn't mean he has to let stupid people profit from evil. It would screw up his system.

There are a bunch of different ways to make morality work. None of them is "correct" and I like some variety from time to time.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 13 mai 2011 - 07:10 .

[Undertone]

Mesina2 wrote...

Dead people not coming as cameo? What a shock!

And how the hell sacrificing Council was made into a joke.
My canon might be Paragon, but I killed them with him and I did not felt punished in ME2.

Dude I don't know if you don't read other posters or you simply lack the mental capacity. I don't understand why people bring this stupid argument in every single thread like this.

[Nathan Redgrave]

If letting Balak escape leads to a confrontation between Shepard and Balak over the incident in Arrival, that would be awesome. Given, you know, the obvious similarity between what Balak attempted and the Project that destroyed the Alpha Relay.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Saph: It doesn't.

Of-course not. Bioware is a for-profit company. It has no ethics.

The company has no ethics. The writers, on the other hand...

[Pride Demon]

TL;DR I think each decision will simply have unique positive and negative repercussions, regardless of morality, so there is no unbalanced "better way"...

I don't believe in the notion that one should be punished because of what way he pursues his in game morality (be it renegade or paragon), it makes the game unbalanced otherwise...

Take the Collector Base question, if it was overly obvious the game is going to be MORE difficult for handing it to Cerberus, then no one would keep it (unless you are a masochist... Or just a completionist roleplayer... ;P)
On the other side, taking the example of the rachni question, if it was overly obvious saving her would make the game MORE easy, then no one would kill her (except the above mentioned groups)

I believe each decision will have both a unique set of advantages and disadvantages: save the Rachni queen, the rachni will help you, but a few will inevitably be captured and turned giving the reapers themselves more manpower (A LOT of rachni husks); kill her and you lose a military asset, but ensure the reapers won't turn them against you (no rachni husks at all or EXTREMELY limited in numbers). This way the question is no longer "will it be easier this way?", but "Is saving her to help me against the reapers worth the risk a portion of her race could be used against me? Is avoiding some of her children from joining the reapers worth condamning her whole race to extinction again?" exactly as it should...

I'm sure the same will go with Cerberus and the Collector Base, and everything else... The devs themselves say they have not revealed all the repercussions of the Base question, so why argue rabidly over something that's just speculation...

Just my two cents anyway...

[Ieldra]

Pride Demon wrote...
Take the Collector Base question, if it was overly obvious the game is going to be MORE difficult for handing it to Cerberus, then no one would keep it (unless you are a masochist... Or just a completionist roleplayer... ;P)

The thing is, it WAS overly obvious that keeping the base was to be taken as the Wrong ™ decision, since ALL team members complain about it back on the Normandy if you do that. Even so, in 37% of all games Shepard was made to do exactly that.

Which makes me think that I'm not alone in this: no, if ME3 will be one-sidedly more difficult for players who kept the base, that will annoy me and make me rant about Bioware punishing my perfectly logical decision, but it won't make me take a different one since from what Shepard knows at the time when he takes the decision, it is perfectly clear to me that keeping the base is at least a viable, if not the strategically superior decision to take. 

I won't metagame in this. Game difficulty is a minor consideration compared to story and my protagonist's integrity.

On the other side, taking the example of the rachni question, if it was overly obvious saving her would make the game MORE easy, then no one would kill her (except the above mentioned groups)

Actually, it WAS always obvious that we would gain an ally if we spared her, and that an overall advantage would result if we didn't kill her. Everyone knew Bioware wouldn't make this decision backfire in a major way. Still, some players killed her because they were convinced that their Shepard, not knowing metagaming and not knowing he was in a story one-sidedly favoring Paragons, would make that decision because of his personality and knowledge at the time.

It's called "roleplaying", you know.

As for what will happen in ME3 - it's quite possible, and very desirable, that Bioware will back off from the earlier games' one-sidedness and give us more balanced consequences. This is still possible because the consequences of the earlier decisions have not yet manifested fully. If it's enough to remove the impression that the ME universe is stacked in favor of Paragons, that remains to be seen.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 mai 2011 - 11:39 .

[Pride Demon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The thing is, it WAS overly obvious that keeping the base was to be taken as the Wrong ™ decision, since ALL team members complain about it back on the Normandy if you do that. Even so, in 37% of all games Shepard was made to do exactly that.

Even considering that saying a decision is wrong (from a moral point of view, since that is what the squaddies argue), isn't the same as saying it will make the game more difficult. Besides, my point is that if you chose to keep it, that means you think it's right (at least for your char), since roleplaying means actively immersing oneself in the character and acting as if it were RL: now tell me honestly if you'll make a decision in RL that you know it's blatantly wrong and will make your life more difficult...

Also, I might be wrong, since it's a while since I played one of my Rene!Sheps, but if you keep the base not everyone complains... I think Mordin and Legion are more or less ok with it... But I can't remember exactly...

Which makes me think that I'm not alone in this: no, if ME3 will be one-sidedly more difficult for players who kept the base, that will annoy me and make me rant about Bioware punishing my perfectly logical decision, but it won't make me take a different one since from what Shepard knows at the time when he takes the decision, it is perfectly clear to me that keeping the base is at least a viable, if not the strategically superior decision to take.

 

You can't be sure you'll be punished and that's that, it could easily be like this:
-Destroy Base = cerberus weaker, but you loose some important tech you might have somehow obtained;
-Keep Base = cerberus stronger, but at some point you'll obtain somehow vital info/tech from it.

Also, it's strategicaly sound to keep the base, not so sound giving it over to a terrorist group known for being ruthless, backstabbing and generally having no OSHA compliance...
If you could have given over to the Alliance or the council I would ptrobably agree more with you in that point...

I won't metagame in this. Game difficulty is a minor consideration compared to story and my protagonist's integrity.

It's called "roleplaying", you know.

I know, I myself have many Sheps, both sex, many different backgrounds and moralities, some are Rene, some Para, some in between, and I always do what I think they'll do. So I guess I know what roleplaying is...
The whole point of my post was that I believe it will be balanced off or they will take roleplay away from the game, because most people would say "This is easier" instead of "This is what Shep would do"...
The WHOLE fourth paragraph of my post is dedicated to this issue, you did read it, right?

On the other side, taking the example of the rachni question, if it was overly obvious saving her would make the game MORE easy, then no one would kill her (except the above mentioned groups)

Actually, it WAS always obvious that we would gain an ally if we spared her, and that an overall advantage would result if we didn't kill her.

Maybe, but again, she says herself her race was somehow brainwashed. If you let her live, you believe in her innocence, and if you believe in her innocence, then you believe in what she says... So even paras have to think, if the queens were in the past brainwashed, what's stopping this queen from suffering somehow the same fate...
A few of my Paragades have killed her for this exact reason, the fact Benezia just told you Saren has a brainwashing Ship doesn't help either...
And in fact I believe the rachni husk to be the negative side of letting her live: you reintroduced the rachni on the galactic board, the reapers come to harvest everything, the rachni will be harvested and converted as well...

As for what will happen in ME3 - it's quite possible, and very desirable, that Bioware will back off from the earlier games' one-sidedness and give us more balanced consequences.

I disagree. I'd like to point out that many battles and situations are made MUCH more easy by taking rene interrupts (or choices) that have no corresponding para interrupt (and my renes gloat with this), let's list a few:
- Killing a whole squad of Eclipse (except for "That poor Salarian ™"), without exploding a shot directly? Check.
- Killing one of the annoying mechs in Garrus Recruitment for free? Check.
- Having a much easier time destroying the chopper at the end of the same mission? Check.
- Gaining the favour of the Urdnot Shaman with a mere headbutt (paras need enough para points for a charm for the same result)? Check.
- Killing the leader of the krogan welcome party in Mordin Loyalty for free? Check.
- Not wasting time explaining yourself to the noisy guy in Thane's loyalty? Check.
- Succesfully obtaining info out of kelham without the need of any kind of high rene or para score? Check 
- Alternatively having the shortest interrogation in history with him? Check.
- Generic badassery (punching khalisa/ throwing an eclipse out of a window/ etc)? Check.

There's probably more... But the point is each morality has already it's strong a weak points, no need to think oneself obstacized...

[Pride Demon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Renegade interrupts are available to every character and they have absolutely no effect on the story.

We were talking about roleplay perspectives... And that means that a roleplay "pure" paragon should not take them...
When I roleplay my "pure" paragon I never click them for instance, while my "pure" rene always takes them, most of my chars thend to be in between and the decision varies... But still they are many game speeders, and they are rene excusively... There's also para exclusives of course, this is no para apology, but thinking oneself ostacized is ridiculous when actually many situations favour you morality too...

Also the "shortest interrogation ever" is a pure rene only choice, not an interrupt...

[Ieldra]

You don't understand where I'm coming from:

It's the big decisions that matter. Who cares if some minor battle is a little easier through a Renegade interrupt, except that it makes you look badass? Who cares, actually, about the *game's* difficulty for the player? That doesn't matter one bit. Who cares if can intimidate Kelham, that's just a style choice affecting my character. It's good for my roleplaying and I appreciate that the choices are there, but it doesn't make a whit of difference for the big picture. OK, maybe killing that Turian or not does, but you know what I mean.

It's the big decisions, the main plot decisions I want to be balanced - the Council and the Rachni in ME1, the Collector Base in ME2. The decisions affecting whole species like what you do at Tali's trial, or if you brainwash or destroy the Heretics. And it's the decisions the consequences of which Shepard can NOT counter by my being more badass in combat. For what does an additional enemy for a squad of three count if the homeworld of the species hangs in the balance? The big picture decisions are in a league of their own, a hundred useful Renegade interrupts cannot counter the consequences of a single big picture- decision with a one-sided advantage for the Paragon side.

I'm not yet claiming that Paragon is favored overall, but it all depends on the balance in the consequences of the big decisions.

As for the Collector Base decision: if you keep it, back on the Normandy, NO ONE is happy with your decision, no one accepts it as a necessary one. Only the comments of the team members you take with you to the final boss, in the conversation with TIM, show any diversity of opinion. And those you only hear if you take certain conversation options. All in all it feels as if Bioware is telling me not to keep the base.

If the consequences of the big, story-affecting decisions are not balanced, then it feels as if the universe - fate, if you want - is favoriing Paragons. And that should not be so.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 mai 2011 - 02:04 .