1768 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Lumikki wrote...
I wasn't asking what bad things to happen others. I was asking bad things to happen you self. Meaning you never get aswered for you "crimes". You talk morality conflicts, but where is moralilty when you can freely kill anyone without any consequences to you self. Is that realistic?

You already have that - if you let the Council die, the Citadel species will hate you. If you sacrifice more people, more people might hate you. Tali and the quarians will hate you if you reveal the evidence at Tali's trial (though I still think that should be a Paragon decision - hiding evidence from a court is NOT Paragon). I am willing to accept that consequence and be the saviour of the galaxy who's hated for having done what was necessary. 

As for answering for my "crimes" - Shepard is a Spectre. Also those in power usually know that it's sometimes necessary to make sacrifices. More than the collective hate of the public and maybe oaths of revenge from some important individuals would not be appropriate. And should there be another political trial, my Shepard will call the double standard and go into exile.

[Lumikki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not only is this a false delimma, this is a strawman against a point Ieldra has already agreed upon.

Yes, but Ieldra is agreeing something what renegade or paragon can't ever have, as give player "harder" negative consequences. Point been only thing what Ieldra wants is more equal content. How ever, everyting is comming from paragon side and regerade doesn't lose anything at all. Do you consider that as least some issue, consider we don't even know how many paragon and renegade players there is.

Ieldra2 wrote...

You already have that - if you let the Council die, the Citadel species will hate you. If you sacrifice more people, more people might hate you. Tali and the quarians will hate you if you reveal the evidence at Tali's trial (though I still think that should be a Paragon decision - hiding evidence from a court is NOT Paragon). I am willing to accept
that consequence and be the saviour of the galaxy who's hated for having done what was necessary.

This can't happen, more agressive way than it's allready, because it isolate renegade player, making renegade gameplay very difficult. You can't really punish player too much, just for  games choises as limiting players gameplay. That was my first lines point there, they cant' really do it. Because players can't handle negative agaist they gameplay that well. Meaning you agree something what will not happen, so you will not give up anything, because they will not do it. It would make renegade gameplay annoying as hell.

What means only gameplay left is just allways choose "right" choise , without it been paragon or renagade. Forcing everyone be both all the time.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:11 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Of course they can tell the story any way they want. It's fiction after all. But if it has any pretensions to realism in depicting possible consequences of decisions, a consistent pattern of "be nice and nothing bad will ever happen" completely defeats that purpose. If that pattern holds, the story told by the games will *be* nothing but a bowdlerized fairy tale In Space. Much like Star Wars, btw. I was under the impression that Bioware doesn't want ME to be that kind of story as well.

That's not the impression I got, having followed the game from prior to it's release and up to date.  Mass Effect is a space opera, it's about a hero saving the galaxy from seemingly impossible odds.  The games fit that and that seems to be what they're supposed to do.  There may be multiple stories but the existence of alternative stories does not make any other invalid.

As for "realistic" consequences, I've already pointed out that the improbable can be as realistic as the probable.  You don't have to believe the unlikely can happen and you don't have to like a story where it does but the fact is that unlikely things do happen and the story is what it is.

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm asking you: do *you* want ME to be that kind of story? Do you want it to carry that message, to take a moral viewpoint of its own instead of letting the players decide how much of the immediate good they're willing to sacrifice for the greater good down the road, or which kind of lesser good down the road they're willing to be content with in order to avoid sacrificing the immediate good?

If the games send a moral message of their own, then none of the decisions are real. Playing Renegade may still be fun, but it will always be contaminated by the knowledge that you *always* get the lesser victory.

That's just not the way I see it, playing Renegade gives a different story but it's not "less" than the Paragon story.  I like both stories, I'm happy with them continuing as they have so far.  You're assuming that the game is trying to force a moral on you, maybe it's just telling a story and letting you pick exactly what that story entails (from the limited options).  A story where some decisions are "right" or "wrong" is no different, you're still limited by what's possible in the story.  For example, saving the council has set consequences that don't change no matter how often you make the choice and you'd still be limited to the pre-determined outcomes even if one choice was "right" and one was "wrong".  You either get the same game with a different story (it being a matter of opinion as to which story is better) or a completely different game where making the right choices is part of the gameplay (and some choices lead to defeat, meaning the game isn't "fair" to all choices anyway).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The game very much is about Hard Decisions: this was among the first advertising taglines of the series as a whole, as well as a consistent and dominant theme in the advertising since then. The entire innovation-boast about Mass Effect is that it's not simply a trilogy, but a trilogy with hard-choices that carry over to shape the galaxy... and that there is no better way to play.

Now, this might not be what you take from the story, but that certainly is Bioware's position on the game. If they failed... then their story has flaws. Still a valid story, still flawed.

There are still hard choices for Shepard to make and the decisions do shape the story.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The fact that there aren't really "wrong" decisions in gameplay terms isn't a problem with the story or the game.  The end result is there's no better way to play (pretty much everyone wins, bar the difficult ME2 exception) and there are genuine decisions to make.  I see no significant failure to stick to the general theme/design of the game.

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:10 .

[Ieldra]

Lumikki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not only is this a false delimma, this is a strawman against a point Ieldra has already agreed upon.

Yes, but Ieldra is agreeing something what renegade or paragon can't ever have. Point been only thing what Ieldra wants is more equal content. How ever, everyting is comming from paragon side and regerade doesn't lose anything at all. Do you consider that as least some issue, consider we don't even know how many paragon and renegade players there is.

No, I don't necessarily want equal contant. I want realistic consequences. I want that strategic thinking sometimes pays off over moralistic thinking. As it is more often than not in the real world. If you analyzed history, you'd see how small a role everyday morality plays in military strategy. Basically if they consider it at all, it's to keep the public quiet and the troops' morale up. And why do they do that? They're human after all and not monsters, right? They do that because it's often the only way to get results. That's what I want the games to acknowledge, instead of affirming the delusion that being nice will always put things right. There are times to be nice, and there are times to be ruthless. Neither side has a monopoly on good or bad outcomes.

[Lumikki]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not only is this a false delimma, this is a strawman against a point Ieldra has already agreed upon.

Yes, but Ieldra is agreeing something what renegade or paragon can't ever have. Point been only thing what Ieldra wants is more equal content. How ever, everyting is comming from paragon side and regerade doesn't lose anything at all. Do you consider that as least some issue, consider we don't even know how many paragon and renegade players there is.

No, I don't necessarily want equal contant. I want realistic consequences. I want that strategic thinking sometimes pays off over moralistic thinking. As it is more often than not in the real world. If you analyzed history, you'd see how small a role everyday morality plays in military strategy. Basically if they consider it at all, it's to keep the public quiet and the troops' morale up. And why do they do that? They're human after all and not monsters, right? They do that because it's often the only way to get results. That's what I want the games to acknowledge, instead of affirming the delusion that being nice will always put things right. There are times to be nice, and there are times to be ruthless. Neither side has a monopoly on good or bad outcomes.

There is no realistic consequences in Mass Effect related morality as long player is Spectre. Because you have the free prison ticked.

PS: Give renegade few correct paths would be fine to me, but some people may not like it, because they are metagames.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:20 .

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...
As for "realistic" consequences, I've already pointed out that the improbable can be as realistic as the probable.  You don't have to believe the unlikely can happen and you don't have to like a story where it does but the fact is that unlikely things do happen and the story is what it is.

You're trying to obfuscate the issue. We have here a constructed story. If in that story, a pattern of highly improbable consequences is established, then that sends the message that this universe is not like the real one. Thus: unrealistic. You might get away with a single decision or two where one side achieves victory by an incredible piece of luck (see: Citadel battle), but the more decisions follow the same pattern the more ridiculous it gets, until even a moron will recognize that something is wrong with the way the story is told.

That's just not the way I see it, playing Renegade gives a different story but it's not "less" than the Paragon story.  I like both stories, I'm happy with them continuing as they have so far.  You're assuming that the game is trying to force a moral on you, maybe it's just telling a story and letting you pick exactly what that story entails (from the limited options).  A story where some decisions are "right" or "wrong" is no different, you're still limited by what's possible in the story.  For example, saving the council has set consequences that don't change no matter how often you make the choice and you'd still be limited to the pre-determined outcomes even if one choice was "right" and one was "wrong".  You either get the same game with a different story (it being a matter of opinion as to which story is better) or a completely different game where making the right choices is part of the gameplay (and some choices lead to defeat, meaning the game isn't "fair" to all choices anyway).

So you're content with a story where you play a Renegade who has the incredible bad luck that all his gambles go wrong? Well, that's you. Me, I am not content with that because - as I said - the mere existence of that pattern of consequences sends the message that being nice always gets the best results and being ruthless is always the lesser choice - regardless of whether or not that message was intended by the developers. And there we are again in the bowdlerized fairy tale In Space.
We do not play the game in isolation. Of course if I never talked about the game with anyone else and only played the story once, I would never notice that pattern. But that's not how things work. As soon as I talk about the games with others, or play different Shepards, I will notice that I'm in that fairy tale. And - ironically - all the enchantment will go out of the story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:34 .

[Ieldra]

Lumikki wrote...
PS: Give renegade few correct paths would be fine to me, but some people may not like it, because they are metagames.

Actually, I would be content with one: let the payoff from keeping the Collector base be greater than its downside.

[Arppis]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Renegade means you win too. You just win in diffirent manner, you know looking out for Number One.

Paragon victory feels better for me, because I enjoy helping others out and actualy building something, instead of destroying things that might benefit the whole galaxy.

Renegade choices prove that they look out for more than themselves.  Additionally, the Collector Base may benefit 'the whole galaxy'... and Paragons destroyed it.

We can't know until Mass Effect 3 has came out. From what we have seen from trailers... was THE right choice to destroy it:

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE TRAILERS AND SUCH...
Cerberus is working with the reapers.

Modifié par Arppis, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:38 .

[Arppis]

GodWood wrote...

Arppis wrote...
Renegade means you win too. You just win in diffirent manner, you know looking out for Number One.

None of the major renegade decisions have been about looking out for oneself.

The major renegade decisions are about being more pragmatic in contrast to the paragon decisions being more idealistic.

Yeah, kinda...  but most major decissions usualy mean that humans get more power and aliens less, thus more power for Shepard too. So in a way, it is still about looking what serves Shepard best.

Modifié par Arppis, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:42 .

[Ieldra]

Arppis wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Renegade means you win too. You just win in diffirent manner, you know looking out for Number One.

Paragon victory feels better for me, because I enjoy helping others out and actualy building something, instead of destroying things that might benefit the whole galaxy.

Renegade choices prove that they look out for more than themselves.  Additionally, the Collector Base may benefit 'the whole galaxy'... and Paragons destroyed it.

We can't know until Mass Effect 3 has came out. From what we have seen from trailers... was THE right choice to destroy it:

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE TRAILERS AND SUCH...
Cerberus is working with the reapers.

Yes....so the benefit of keeping the base has to be pretty big as well to balance that out. Right? If they really confirm that this was intended as the "right" choice and give no discernible storyline benefit to the Renegade decision YET AGAIN after all these complaints, I'll go on a rant the size of the CItadel. I've been discussing ME for years, but "ruined forever" comes to mind here for the first time. I can live with the unbalanced rest even though I won't like it, but this would be so hugely insulting that I wouldn't be able to forgive the writers. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:47 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're trying to obfuscate the issue. We have here a constructed story. If in that story, a pattern of highly improbable consequences is established, then that sends the message that this universe is not like the real one. Thus: unrealistic. You might get away with a single decision or two where one side achieves victory by an incredible piece of luck (see: Citadel battle), but the more decisions follow the same pattern the more ridiculous it gets, until even a moron will recognize that something is wrong with the way the story is told.

That's simply untrue.  Perhaps you've heard the saying that "truth is stranger than fiction"? Sometimes things don't go the way you expect.

Ieldra2 wrote...

So you're content with a story where you play a Renegade who has the incredible bad luck that all his gambles go wrong?

Your interpretation, I don't see it that way.  A Renegade wins in the end just as a Paragon does and things work out.  Any outcome of a Paragon choice that you don't make simply doesn't happen in the Renegade story, in real life you don't find out what would have happened if you'd made a different choice so it's only "unrealistic" for the player to metagame that way.

Besides, I actually would be happy with a story like that.  Having the main character win or lose doesn't automatically make or break a story.  There's more to a story than just the ending or even the events.
 

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, that's you. Me, I am not content with that because - as I said - the mere existence of that pattern of consequences sends the message that being nice always gets the best results and being ruthless is always the lesser choice - regardless of whether or not that message was intended by the developers. And there we are again in the bowdlerized fairy tale In Space.
We do not play the game in isolation. Of course if I never talked about the game with anyone else and only played the story once, I would never notice that pattern. But that's not how things work. As soon as I talk about the games with others, or play different Shepards, I will notice that I'm in that fairy tale. And - ironically - all the enchantment will go out of the story.

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion.  Personally, I don't view any single story as being representative of everything and all reality.  For example, a story about a single battle doesn't tell the story of the war and a story about a war doesn't tell the story of all conflict ever.  Infact, you can even have two stories about the same battle telling completely different tales.

Sometimes being nice does work, a story where that happens isn't inherently less realistic than one where being "practical" works or one where a mixture works or any other.  If you can't accept that the possible and improbable can happen then you're the one being unrealistic.  The fact that the improbable happens in this story isn't an indicator that it's guaranteed in real-life or that the writers believe and are trying to spread the idea that it is.

Modifié par Smeelia, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:56 .

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...
Sometimes being nice does work, a story where that happens isn't inherently less realistic than one where being "practical" works or one where a mixture works or any other.  If you can't accept that the possible and improbable can happen then you're the one being unrealistic.  The fact that the improbable happens in this story isn't an indicator that it's guaranteed in real-life or that the writers believe and are trying to spread the idea that it is.

Didn't you read what I wrote? The mere fact that this pattern exists will send that message. Reality is stranger than fiction, yes, because fiction has stronger requirements for consistency than reality. The reason is that fiction is constructed by people, and because of that the message that "being nice always pays off" will be sent if such a pattern exists, regardless of intention, unlike in reality, where such a pattern is just a random fluke. Reality doesn't send any other messages than "learn by experience". Natural events are not usually interpreted as sending a moral message. People's actions are - like constructing a story.
Also there's this: the total set of events in a story will be taken as the whole by the reader. Untold events that may break the pattern don't count. In reality, we can look at all events in history and see that such a pattern doesn't exist, even if it may exist in one particular sequence of events. In a story, the set of events told IS the whole, and if a pattern of consequences exists there, it is thus unrealistic,

Again, don't try to argue the obvious away by obfuscating the issue. That that pattern exists at the moment is undeniable, and consequently, my criticism is valid - if it will hold we'll see when ME3 is out. 

Edit;
There's also this: if a pattern of "being nice always pays off" exists in a constructed story, then those who would like strategic thinking to pay off more often rightly feel snubbed by the writers. Because it's the writers' responsibility to deliver on the promise that there is no "right" path through the story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:17 .

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Didn't you read what I wrote? The mere fact that this pattern exists will send that message.

A writer can't be held responsible for every interpretation of their story.  I didn't get the same message you did, I'm sure other people have their own views.  The writers can only write and let people think what they think.  Even your "pattern" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, for Shepard to win against a seemingly unstoppable force means they have to beat the odds so it'd be impossible to write this story without having Shepard do the improbable.

People could read all sorts of "messages" into Mass Effect by analysing "patterns", that doesn't make the story invalid or "wrong".
 

Ieldra2 wrote...

Again, don't try to argue the obvious away by obfuscating the issue. That that pattern exists at the moment is undeniable, and consequently, my criticism is valid - if it will hold we'll see when ME3 is out.

I think you're the one trying to "obfuscate the issue".  The fact that you see a "message" in the story does nothing to prove there's anything wrong with the story itself.  Different people can interpret the story differently, your assumption for what the "message" is isn't the only one and frankly even if it's the intention to send this "message" there's still nothing wrong with the story itself.

The fact that the story doesn't tie into your beliefs doesn't automatically mean there's anything wrong with it.  It may mean the story doesn't appeal to you but it can (and does) still appeal to others.

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Didn't you read what I wrote? The mere fact that this pattern exists will send that message.

A writer can't be held responsible for every interpretation of their story.  I didn't get the same message you did, I'm sure other people have their own views.  The writers can only write and let people think what they think.  Even your "pattern" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, for Shepard to win against a seemingly unstoppable force means they have to beat the odds so it'd be impossible to write this story without having Shepard do the improbable.

Yes, that Shepard manages to defeat the Reapers at all is improbable. Yes, that's what the story is about. However, that Paragon Shepard manages to defeat them without having to make any hard decisions, that's ridiculous. Arrival actually shows what kind of decisions Shepard must sometimes make, and had that been a real player's decision this thread probably wouldn't exist. But they wriggled out of it - why make it a real decision if refusing to make the hard choice would result in a game over screen, right? Can't have the Paragons complain about being presented with a game over screen, right? So why do they think presenting Renegades with the lesser outcomes is more acceptable? 
And please, don't reiterate that they aren't lesser outcomes. If they have similar strategic benefits (regarding the goal of defeating the Reapers) but more downsides (like more people killed and more dislike incurred) then you can talk until you're blue in the face, it won't change the fact that those outcomes are lesser by any reasonable standard.

People could read all sorts of "messages" into Mass Effect by analysing "patterns", that doesn't make the story invalid or "wrong".

Don't put words in my mouth. I said I measure the story by Bioware's promise that there would be no right or wrong path through the story. Well, with regard to winning, that's likely true, but because of the unbalanced consequences there is still a "more right" and a "less right" path through the story.

The fact that you see a "message" in the story does nothing to prove there's anything wrong with the story itself.  Different people can interpret the story differently, your assumption for what the "message" is isn't the only one and frankly even if it's the intention to send this "message" there's still nothing wrong with the story itself.

We're going round in circles. I do not measure the story in a vacuum. YET AGAIN, Bioware EXPLICITLY SAID that the story was not intended to paint Paragon as more right than Renegade. YET AGAIN; EXACTLY THAT is what happened. That means that the story fails to deliver on one explicitly stated goal.  
And ....yet again, don't try to deny the obvious. That you are content with the story as it's told is no argument against it being flawed by measureable standards. You try to put my arguments off as mere opinions, but instead it's you who's going off on mere "impressions".

[Dave of Canada]

It's funny, I recall Arrival being absolutely loathed by a lot of paragons on the forums because there was no happy ending and that they were forced to kill the 300k people. It's become so ingrained that there's positives for the paragon that they expected to save everybody and stop the Reapers from arriving at the same time.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:47 .

[Lumikki]

I don't know.

I mean if you go paragon path you get sertain type of consequences, what does fit in paragon actions. If you go renegade path same happens there. Just because consequences are different kind, doens't mean one is rewarded over other. Sure, paragon consequences are positive while renegade are mostly negative, but that is also nature of those paths. Only thing what I really agree here, is that it should not happen allways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:56 .

[Ieldra]

Dave of Canada wrote...
It's funny, I recall Arrival being absolutely loathed by a lot of paragons on the forums because there was no happy ending and that they were forced to kill the 300k people. It's become so ingrained that there's positives for the paragon that they expected to save everybody and stop the Reapers from arriving at the same time.

Yeah...that just proves my point that in the rest of the games you can always wriggle out of the hard decisions. But I love Arrival for the same reason - that it brings home that it's impossible to stay squeaky clean in a conflict like this.

And I'm not even a Renegade fan. In fact, most of my Shepards are Paragade or Neutral. But even for them, if Paragon choices never have any downside it feels less real. If I had gotten that e-mail that Balak had committed more acts of terrorism after I let him go, then I would've known that my decision meant something. My Shepard who made the decision wouldn't have liked the result of course, but for me as the player the story would've gained considerably in immersion.

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, that Shepard manages to defeat the Reapers at all is improbable. Yes, that's what the story is about. However, that Paragon Shepard manages to defeat them without having to make any hard decisions, that's ridiculous.

Shepard does have to make hard decisions, Shepard doesn't know how things will work out and Shepard can't metagame.

Ieldra2 wrote...

And please, don't reiterate that they aren't lesser outcomes. If they have similar strategic benefits (regarding the goal of defeating the Reapers) but more downsides (like more people killed and more dislike incurred) then you can talk until you're blue in the face, it won't change the fact that those outcomes are lesser by any reasonable standard.

By your standards, that's certainly not the only "reasonable" standard.  You're wrong to suggest that your opinion is "better", it's purely subjective.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Don't put words in my mouth. I said I measure the story by Bioware's promise that there would be no right or wrong path through the story. Well, with regard to winning, that's likely true, but because of the unbalanced consequences there is still a "more right" and a "less right" path through the story.

That's just not the case.  You're under the impression that the fact the story doesn't go a way you like then there must be something wrong with it and that's simply not true.

The fact that the Paragon story is more "idealistic" and the Renegade path is more "cynical" does not make either the "correct" path.  All choices are valid, all choices lead to similar gameplay (with a few exceptions but those are design flaws rather than story flaws) and all choices lead to "winning" the game.  They've stuck to their promise so far.

Ieldra2 wrote...

We're going round in circles. I do not measure the story in a vacuum. YET AGAIN, Bioware EXPLICITLY SAID that the story was not intended to paint Paragon as more right than Renegade. YET AGAIN; EXACTLY THAT is what happened. That means that the story fails to deliver on one explicitly stated goal.  
And ....yet again, don't try to deny the obvious. That you are content with the story as it's told is no argument against it being flawed by measureable standards. You try to put my arguments off as mere opinions, but instead it's you who's going off on mere "impressions".

Or perhaps you're the one who's wrong and is failing to realise that the very fact that the story works perfectly well as described for me and others shows that it's not "wrong" or "broken".  Perhaps you're just so tightly grasping to the idea that your opinion is the only "right" one that you're failing to realise it's an opinion and not a fact.  Perhaps the way you interpret Bioware's goals isn't the way they intended them.

The story seems to work as intended, the fact that you interpret things like the "goal" and the "message" a certain way doesn't mean you're right.

[byzantine horse]

My only problem with the Paragon/Renegade system is that it more often than not is "****" or "god's best child" you are choosing between. Why do I have to tear someone's heart out to be a renegade, can't I just be uncompromising, reckless and stubborn as hell? Why are Paragons throwing a bucket of cookies and roses on everyone who passes by to make sure that they look good? Wouldn't usually good traits like merciful, cautious and honorable be enough?

I hope that there is a change on this in Mass Effect 3, I like the current system well enough (it works which is what is most important) but it could be much better. The spectrum shouldn't be "good and evil", I rather like having different shades of grey, it is more fun and easier to get yourself into, at least in my eyes.

[DaringMoosejaw]

byzantine horse wrote...

My only problem with the Paragon/Renegade system is that it more often than not is "****" or "god's best child" you are choosing between. Why do I have to tear someone's heart out to be a renegade, can't I just be uncompromising, reckless and stubborn as hell? Why are Paragons throwing a bucket of cookies and roses on everyone who passes by to make sure that they look good? Wouldn't usually good traits like merciful, cautious and honorable be enough?

I hope that there is a change on this in Mass Effect 3, I like the current system well enough (it works which is what is most important) but it could be much better. The spectrum shouldn't be "good and evil", I rather like having different shades of grey, it is more fun and easier to get yourself into, at least in my eyes.

In all fairness Renegade isn't really evil at all. Being a dick, no matter how severe of a dick you may be, does not make you evil.

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And please, don't reiterate that they aren't lesser outcomes. If they have similar strategic benefits (regarding the goal of defeating the Reapers) but more downsides (like more people killed and more dislike incurred) then you can talk until you're blue in the face, it won't change the fact that those outcomes are lesser by any reasonable standard.

By your standards, that's certainly not the only "reasonable" standard.  You're wrong to suggest that your opinion is "better", it's purely subjective.

So you insist that if I say that an outcome with more downsides and the same benefits as measured by the goals of the story (which are clearly defined) is lesser than an outcome with fewer downsides, that's "purely subjective"?

I rest my case.

Dismissed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:30 .

[Daradain]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

byzantine horse wrote...

My only problem with the Paragon/Renegade system is that it more often than not is "****" or "god's best child" you are choosing between. Why do I have to tear someone's heart out to be a renegade, can't I just be uncompromising, reckless and stubborn as hell? Why are Paragons throwing a bucket of cookies and roses on everyone who passes by to make sure that they look good? Wouldn't usually good traits like merciful, cautious and honorable be enough?

I hope that there is a change on this in Mass Effect 3, I like the current system well enough (it works which is what is most important) but it could be much better. The spectrum shouldn't be "good and evil", I rather like having different shades of grey, it is more fun and easier to get yourself into, at least in my eyes.

In all fairness Renegade isn't really evil at all. Being a dick, no matter how severe of a dick you may be, does not make you evil.

Truth. I've also noticed that many renegade options are more military do-what-it-takes, rather than I-like-to-kick-puppies. I still think blowing up that one geth base was a good call for my paragon shep. 

[Smeelia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

So you insist that if I say that an outcome with more downsides and the same benefits as measured by the goals of the story (which are clearly defined) is lesser than an outcome with fewer downsides, that's "purely subjective"?

I rest my case.

Dismissed.

So you accept my point then?

A story with a "costly" or "negative" ending isn't inherently worse than a story with a "positive" one.  The fact that these stories co-exist within the same game doesn't make either one "inferior" either.

[Aesieru]

Good choices should still have consequences, and not just less money or credits or interesting items are won.

[Ieldra]

Smeelia wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
So you insist that if I say that an outcome with more downsides and the same benefits as measured by the goals of the story (which are clearly defined) is lesser than an outcome with fewer downsides, that's "purely subjective"?

I rest my case.

Dismissed.

So you accept my point then?

A story with a "costly" or "negative" ending isn't inherently worse than a story with a "positive" one.  The fact that these stories co-exist within the same game doesn't make either one "inferior" either.

I'm sorry but I must ask this: can you read? That point is completely irrelevant to this debate. I said "lesser as measured by the goals of the story". Which is the in-game measure of success. This was never about the "storytelling value" - that was a side issue introduced by you to distract from the real problem.

The problem is that the game lets me play a Renegade but never validates Renegade decisions. That would've been less of a problem if they'd told me in advance "If you play Renegade, you'll have a much harder time". But in fact they told me "Renegade and Paragon are equal paths to victory". Which they aren't. Both have have the same potential for drama, yes, but that's irrevelant. By the in-game measure of succcess, they aren't equal. That is most definitely not a subjective standard.