53 réponses à ce sujet

[Drone223]

After seeing all these Paragon vs. Renegade threads and seeing how some plays want certain choices to be 'punished' I've been thinking that people made their choices because they want them to feel like they made the right choice and achieved something for the good of the galaxy thats why I think all choices as regardless of what there are such handing over or destorying the collecter base should be of equal benefit (though like people say there should be consequences), I understand that some people like RPG's were one choice is better than the other, but there should be no correct method of fighting the reapers beacsue thats why imo why I enjoy the RPG elements of mass effect

[ChurchOfZod]

I fully disagree. I think that if you went through two games acting like a selfish "badass" murdering anyone in your path, you should pay for it. Especially considering that Bioware makes games that are about bringing factions together to fight a larger enemy. If you've killed a ton of potential allies, your fight SHOULD be tougher.

That being said, I don't care if some of the choices are of equal consequence, like the Collector Base, but there's no way that a player who can't add the Quarians, Krogan, Geth, or council races to their allies should have as easy a time as a player who cultivated alliances.

Modifié par ChurchOfZod, 11 juillet 2011 - 09:26 .

[Arppis]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

I fully disagree. I think that if you went through two games acting like a selfish "badass" murdering anyone in your path, you should pay for it. Especially considering that Bioware makes games that are about bringing factions together to fight a larger enemy. If you've killed a ton of potential allies, your fight SHOULD be tougher.

That being said, I don't care if some of the choices are of equal consequence, like the Collector Base, but there's no way that a player who can't add the Quarians, Krogan, Geth, or council races to their allies should have as easy a time as a player who cultivated alliances.

Yes, actions should have consequences. I always pondered this, why people think that short tempered (and sighted) violent behaviour should be praised or accepted? But still, if someone wants to play as one, I think he should be able to finish the game as well as paragon does.

[GunMoth]

Aye. I've been fiddling around with the Witcher 2 for some time, and even deeds that would first be considered "good" on the morality spectrum (sparing someone's life etc.) get punished often.

You have a chance to save someone, and if you do, she ends up betraying you and trying to kill you. You have to approach their morality system like a judge would. Only pay attention to physical evidence. If you simply do something out of the kindness of your heart it bites you in the butt later.


I don't want Mass Effect to continue giving us side quests and important choices to make that are responded with an email and a cameo. Those are nice, but a system that actually influences the main storyline would be far more interesting. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:10 .

[tobynator89]

No, I'd rather be surprised.

[Foolsfolly]

Consequences.

Paragon players, Renegade players, and anything in-between should have different reactions. If reprogramming the geth, curing the genophage, and saving the rachni are all the same as doing the opposite than there's no consequence for actions. Which means all the choices were illusions.

I'm not strictly saying "punish" the player for their choices but have the outcomes of those choices be different.

[AngelicMachinery]

I'm I've gotta be punished for making sure criminal's are no longer a danger, I think Paragons should be punished for being idealistic derpity doos.

[nhsk]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

I'm I've gotta be punished for making sure criminal's are no longer a danger, I think Paragons should be punished for being idealistic derpity doos.

BW does that, but mostly in epilogues. Same with renegade choices turning out to be good though, in the actual game it doesn't really matter.

You really think destroying the genophage cure on Tuchanka is going to prevent the cure in ME3 or something similiar you are sadly mistaken.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

I prefer consequences in my games. At least some decisions should have logical outcomes (keeping the Collector base, for example, should yield a benefit to Cerberus, but also reward the player/destroying the base should yield no benefit to Cerberus or to the player).

The majority of people's concerns revolve around the visible advantages that players get from playing paragon, whereas renegade choices seem to be leading more towards a "bad ending" from what we've seen/heard. Bioware needs only to balance the (dis)advantages on both sides, and most people would be happy.

[BlueMagitek]

Alpha Protocol pulls this off pretty well; you get a bonus for killing a guy, a different one for not killing him, events play out differently.

Of course, it is a completely different type of game, so you have to keep that in mind. But I'm sure Bioware can manage to give different types bonuses/consequences for different actions.

[nhsk]

And as said, the disadvantages is shown / told in the epilogue.

It's like "Harrowmont vs. Bhelen" - The good choice is Harrowmont but he is a crappy king. Bhelen is a ruthless brotherslaying s.o.b but he gets the job done and drags the dwarves out of seclusion and eventual fall.

The noble choice is to help that dwarven girl who wishes to study magic (even though she can never cast a spell) to get to study. It makes the chantry consider a holy march on Orzammar.

But consequences making an actual difference in the game, forget it, it would take way to much development time, cost a lot of additional funds, and cost you as a customer more in the end because it effectively means that many different games in one game would be have to be developed.

While it can work in sandbox RPGs like Fallout it can't in BW games because of the strong narrative, which is BWs strongpoint.

The differences your choices makes are minor cosmetic ones at most. The genophage will be cured, with or without Mordin. With or without the data from Maelon.
The only thing that will change is the dialogue and perhaps some of the NPCs you deal with.

But because this is the truth, it will be ignored.

Modifié par nhsk, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:22 .

[Foolsfolly]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Alpha Protocol pulls this off pretty well; you get a bonus for killing a guy, a different one for not killing him, events play out differently.

Of course, it is a completely different type of game, so you have to keep that in mind. But I'm sure Bioware can manage to give different types bonuses/consequences for different actions.

Alpha Protocol is a fine example on reactivity in games. The game plays out differently due to player choice and reputation that the player has earned. Most of these differences are strictly dialogue based but it's the game recongizing the player's choices.

I gotta admit the first time I played Alpha Protocol and Marburg gained respect for me because I'd done all the Italy missions so far without being spotted or killing anyone I was happily surprised. I wasn't a villain killing people indiscriminately and the game knew and commented on that.

[Medhia Nox]

@AngelicMachinery - I'm primarily a Paragon, and I agree with you.

But not for everything. I don't want trying to be moral exclusively punished any more than trying to be pragmatic should be. Nor do I want it exclusively rewarded.

I've said plenty - destroying the Collector Base should be a big time punishment to Paragons.

===

I must look at this Alpha Protocol game.

Having Shepard able to minimize the amount of people he kills would be amazing.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:28 .

[Clonedzero]

different but both functional.

my fear is that choices will have "this is the correct choice in hindsight, this choice was wrong" ect.

like if you have race slots to help you, like "you have taurians and they can do this job" and like the rachni is just one extra race to help you and all it does it spawn extra enemies? meh. thats lame.

the results should be different i just dont want a list of "correct" choices from a metagaming experience. i dont want it to be the right move gameplaywise to make certain choices.

like, i dont want "well you killed the rachni queen so now you get less stuff and te good ending is way harder now" or "you blew up the collector base, so now you get less stuff and the good ending is way harder now" ect.

if after a couple weeks of the game being out and theres a check list of the "correct" choices to make in allt he games to get the best results, i will be extremely disappointed.

[TheMakoMaster]

nhsk wrote...


But because this is the truth, it will be ignored.

ignored.  but just because i hope you are wrong, even though you're probably right. :innocent:   would be nice, however, to really have some game changing/divergent variables in ME3 since it is supposed to be the epic conclusion to the trilogy.

Modifié par TheMakoMaster, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:55 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i would be extremely dissapointed if my game ended the same way as someone who started with ME3.

whats the point in parading around the choices we make, when i could have done the opposite thing, or not even do anything, and still got to the same conclusion.

if a renegade shepard ends ME3 in a happier or even slightly happy ME3, ill be really really mad i played ME2 as much as i did.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:23 .

[AngelicMachinery]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i would be extremely dissapointed if my game ended the same way as someone who started with ME3.

whats the point in parading around the choices we make, when i could have done the opposite thing, or not even do anything, and still got to the same conclusion.

if a renegade shepard ends ME3 in a happier or even slightly happy ME3, ill be really really mad i played ME2 as much as i did.

I think your going to be mad bro, you're not going to get a crappy end for playing renegade.  Just as you probably won't get a crappy end for playing paragon.  It's the renegons and paragades that will probably get bad endings.  So,  prepare for rage if your expecting red text to be punished.

[The Spamming Troll]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i would be extremely dissapointed if my game ended the same way as someone who started with ME3.

whats the point in parading around the choices we make, when i could have done the opposite thing, or not even do anything, and still got to the same conclusion.

if a renegade shepard ends ME3 in a happier or even slightly happy ME3, ill be really really mad i played ME2 as much as i did.

I think your going to be mad bro, you're not going to get a crappy end for playing renegade.  Just as you probably won't get a crappy end for playing paragon.  It's the renegons and paragades that will probably get bad endings.  So,  prepare for rage if your expecting red text to be punished.

whats the point in having choice then?

[AngelicMachinery]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i would be extremely dissapointed if my game ended the same way as someone who started with ME3.

whats the point in parading around the choices we make, when i could have done the opposite thing, or not even do anything, and still got to the same conclusion.

if a renegade shepard ends ME3 in a happier or even slightly happy ME3, ill be really really mad i played ME2 as much as i did.

I think your going to be mad bro, you're not going to get a crappy end for playing renegade.  Just as you probably won't get a crappy end for playing paragon.  It's the renegons and paragades that will probably get bad endings.  So,  prepare for rage if your expecting red text to be punished.

whats the point in having choice then?

Oh the endings will be different,  but,  Renegades aren't going to get a big "LOLUDOUCHE!" Ending.  They're going to have just as much chance as getting a good ending as Paragons.  They both make silly choices,  I don't care how much you rant about morality and what not...  but if renegades are going to be hit for being ass hats paragons should be punished for being way to naive and idealistic.

[Iakus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Alpha Protocol pulls this off pretty well; you get a bonus for killing a guy, a different one for not killing him, events play out differently.

Of course, it is a completely different type of game, so you have to keep that in mind. But I'm sure Bioware can manage to give different types bonuses/consequences for different actions.

Exactly.

It should not be that choices are "rewarded" or "punished" It should be that there are "consequences" for choices.   The question becomes, what are the consequences you're willing to live with?  What are you willing to trade for the ending you want?

[Mr Powers94]

i disagree there should definatley be choices that are better than other choices because then the game wouldnt matter. do whatever the **** you want its always the same outcome. yeah that sounds lke a great game. not.  (this is not about previous post but the very first post in the thread)

Modifié par Mr Powers94, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:08 .

[VegasVance]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Consequences.

^This, I would be messed up to have Wreave leading the Krogan and have it be exactly the same as if it was Wrex instead. 

[wizardryforever]

I support this idea.  People think that if there is no "wrong" choice, then somehow the choice is meaningless.  I'd say that having a right and wrong choice would make it meaningless.  If that were the case, there would be no reason to ever pick the wrong choice, and everyone would always pick the right choice, making the whole idea of a choice moot.

Choices should have an impact on the story, the dialogue, the cutscenes, and the ending.  They should not have any huge impact on the gameplay, and definitely not make the game unwinnable.  If they make and "all is lost" ending, similar to ME2's "Shepard dies" ending, then it should only be based on the choices you made in ME3, preferably just the choices at the end.  Each choice should have its pros and cons, with different advantages and disadvantages.  This is the core of what the OP is arguing for, I think.

[Urza]

The benefit is the story consequences if you ask me.

[The Spamming Troll]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

i would be extremely dissapointed if my game ended the same way as someone who started with ME3.

whats the point in parading around the choices we make, when i could have done the opposite thing, or not even do anything, and still got to the same conclusion.

if a renegade shepard ends ME3 in a happier or even slightly happy ME3, ill be really really mad i played ME2 as much as i did.

I think your going to be mad bro, you're not going to get a crappy end for playing renegade.  Just as you probably won't get a crappy end for playing paragon.  It's the renegons and paragades that will probably get bad endings.  So,  prepare for rage if your expecting red text to be punished.

whats the point in having choice then?

Oh the endings will be different,  but,  Renegades aren't going to get a big "LOLUDOUCHE!" Ending.  They're going to have just as much chance as getting a good ending as Paragons.  They both make silly choices,  I don't care how much you rant about morality and what not...  but if renegades are going to be hit for being ass hats paragons should be punished for being way to naive and idealistic.

im hoping for the same. itd more impressive if ME3 left out things that made new players want to go back and play the previous games they missed. if they can catch that wind with the story, then theyll realy succeed in terms of creating a story that matters from start to finish. the main thing is i know im not going to expect much, but im fairly convinced my 100% completionist combined ME1 and ME2 runs wont mean anything more then the completely new ME3 players outcome.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:31 .