53 réponses à ce sujet

[Golden Owl]

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.

Why? Aren't you just wanting to see your own moral judgements foisted on another player in their own game?

[darthnick427]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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.

I agree with punishments but how is destroying the Collector base a punishment for paragons? Wouldn't it be a punishment for renegades since only Cerberus uses the data from the base and in the third game they're indoctincated by the reapers? So if anything the renegades would be punished for making their enemies "once ally" stronger by giving them reaper/collector tech

[CheeseEnchilada]

The problem here lies in the fact that all our decisions are either Paragon or Renegade. Showing consequences for one side and not the other makes it seem like favoritism, and the 'right' path. Giving a minimal consequence helps to negate that, but it makes it seem like our choices don't matter.

I'm not even going to speculate on how they'll handle the choices made in ME2, but I'm curious; if we're given big choices in ME3 and it doesn't affect our Paragon/Renegade score at all, would consequences be accepted? Say you had to choose: help the quarians, help the geth, or broker a negotiation and have both sides suffer serious losses. If there were no paragon/renegade points attached to this decision, it might come across as more of a 'gray' choice.

It won't happen, but it's nice to think about. In the meantime, both paragon and renegade choices should have issues to deal with. Enemy rachni should be soley a paragon problem. If you destroyed the genophage cure, the krogans could be likely to help you or less motivated. And the collector base? ....I have no clue.

Modifié par CheeseEnchilada, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:00 .

[maddenking2010]

I think there are choices for both alignments that will end up being wrong choices, or least choices that make things more difficult, but you will have to oppritunity to fix that mistake in classic commander shepard fashion.
and by that I mean, alot of dead bad guys haha

Modifié par maddenking2010, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:45 .

[MeAndMySandvich]

No. Consequences for choices are good. Not need Dragon Age 2 in space.

[Bogsnot1]

Oh look, another "I demand to be able to act like an arsehat and not be penalised for it" thread.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

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.

With regard the latter, I think you are right but only really because newbies will be getting a comic or some sort of 'previously on mass effect' thing that will allow them to make key choices from the previous 2 games and thus other than some extra cameo stuff they won't see (like potentially Conrad, Shiala, Rana, Gianni, Fist, Helena Blake etc...) they'd be able to create a story similar (though not identical) to yours.

As for the OP question, no.... there should be some choices that have consequences for making them and that is on both sides of the spectrum just as some of the choices for both sides whilst naturally some that do give benefits.

[Chuvvy]

You, are the cancer killing videogames.

[Savber100]

darthnick427 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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.

I agree with punishments but how is destroying the Collector base a punishment for paragons? Wouldn't it be a punishment for renegades since only Cerberus uses the data from the base and in the third game they're indoctincated by the reapers? So if anything the renegades would be punished for making their enemies "once ally" stronger by giving them reaper/collector tech

Aye but imagine the point remains... The Collector tech will still remain despite Cerberus' indoctrination. Renagade Shepard will have a chance to obtain it after defeating TIM. However, Paragons will not have this option. 

[mrklean007]

...Are you kidding? My favorite part of this series is that you have to make some very very hard moral decisions. Then, once made, you spend the rest of the game second-guessing yourself. But that all goes away if i know i can just go "la dee da it doesnt matter what i do cuz everything will be a happy end"

I would say that paragon and renegade decisions will both have their own different problems, and your success will depend on how you handle them.

[Praetor Knight]

Yes all choices should benefit somehow, like being able to share cuisines!

Perusing the CDN I found this:

10/30/2010 - "Reversal" Treatment Allows Dextro/Levo Species to Share Cuisines

“The process is quite literally stomach-turning, but gourmands across the galaxy are lining up to try Reversal, a new gastrointestinal immunosuppressant treatment that allows dextro/levo species to safely sample each other's cuisine. The process is expensive, lasts less than 24 [Earth Standard] hours, and the food provides no nutrition, but restaurants are already busy booking dextro/levo food parties. "It's an adventure," says food writer and Reversal enthusiast Livian Messalina. "We're opening up new ranges of texture and flavor to each other. Taste still varies from species to species, but that's part of the fun." Doctors are warning these bold new epicures to watch out for leftovers -- meals should be eaten as soon as possible, and users must purge before the treatment wears off.”

[Nashiktal]

mrklean007 wrote...

...Are you kidding? My favorite part of this series is that you have to make some very very hard moral decisions. Then, once made, you spend the rest of the game second-guessing yourself. But that all goes away if i know i can just go "la dee da it doesnt matter what i do cuz everything will be a happy end"

I would say that paragon and renegade decisions will both have their own different problems, and your success will depend on how you handle them.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. When given a choice between two things, and one thing offers a clear advantage, this leads to metagaming. 

Why not make it that instead of being a clear choice, where one is clearly the best, but make either choice simply change the field? Not good, not bad, but different. Then the decision will have to go by how you think, instead of by how much the choice is "right."

[Core_Commander]

Actions in Mass Effect already work like this, and always have... Whatever you choose, you further your agenda - only with some possible NPC collateral damage, you almost never mess up yourself. They all benefit you, and it's nearly impossible to "fail" a quest. You literally don't need to read, just click and everything will work out - especially if you click the persuasion options.

I'm not complaining - it's how the game has always been - but I don't see what your issue is. It's a far cry from classic-style RPG's where one bad answer can fail you an entire quest chain. Try and compare ME dialogue with Torment or Bloodlines and you'll see what I mean. Bloodlines for example had varied persuasion/intimidate/seduce options, but even if they were available, if you didn't match the approach to the type of person you were talking to - you could fail. In ME, a red/blue option means you WILL solve your problem if you click it, and options on the right mean that you will solve it at some small cost. I don't think it's possible to make ME more consequence-free (in a more than cosmetic sense) and still retain the feel that players' decisions matter.

Modifié par Core_Commander, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:06 .

[Varen Spectre]

CRYoz1 wrote...

I like games like Deus EX and Orgins because it allows you to search for resolutions beyond the black and white. 

For example in orgins you have the option to recruit the werewolves or elves by killing one or the other. But there actually a third option of curing the werewolves and recruiting the elves.

Well, I haven't played Dragon Age Origins, so feel free to correct me, but doesn't that third option sound like "white" one? I mean, it seems like you do not have to sacrify anybody, you achieve what you want and both parties should get along with you quite well... That would be my obvious choice unless there were other repercussions.  

You have no idea what metagaming is. Making smart decisions is not meta gaming. Meta gaming is opening up the game guide or reading the forums and thus being able to make decisions based on information not available to the character ingame.

Bioware makes RPG's and non-linear storylines. There will be choices that have options that end badly. Some that end well. Some that change the direction of the subplot but have no consequences one way or another.

Sorry man but decision based games have consequences. If it's too tough for you then a RPG (Or RPG lite in Mass Effect 3) isn't for you.

Well, that might be one of the interpretations of metagaming... but there are others and as of now, there isn't one generally accepted as superior. However, most of them talk about taking into account factors other than ingame's universe and rules...

Such factor might even be the amount of story, animations, cutscenes - i.e. game content in the sequel game. Therefore, for example from metagamer's perspective, it would be unwise to make renegade's decision and kill somebody, since there will be no new content in the next game as opposed to paragon's route.

Metagaming is usually perceived as a negative / unwanted trait, but sometimes, it is very hard to avoid it. One of the helpful moves might therefore be the addition of equally interesting (not necessarily beneficial for succesful completion of the game) content (consequences) to all types of decisions. And this is, what most of these guys are asking for... and that is, I guess, why the name of the thread says "benefit somehow".

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:00 .

[Arppis]

Would be awesome if how you treated Conrad Verner affected some big event. ;D

Having a control over killing big portion of reapers:
"Well, I am not going to press this switch, because you have been sucha douche at me Shepard!"

[Earl_of_Albion]

I think both paragons and renegades and everything inbetween should be able to achieve a successful ending, one built on their in-game choices and by successful I don't necessarilly mean a warm and fuzzy ending. One which suited the style of play would be the fairest option.

There should also be the option to balls it up completely just as you could in ME2

What I would like to see is that all of those important choices I have made over the previous two games having benefits AND consequences regardless of the path I walked.

For example releasing the Rachni Queen offers me a possible ally but means I have to face Rachni husks on half the planets I visit and likewise that handing the base to Cerberus nets me some sort of powerful tech but that tech is usable by those Cerberus troops I end up fighting.

That way there's a potential reward and the chance for more challenging gameplay!

I don't like people saying "you're a whatever so because you did this, that and the other you should lose!!!" Why should I, after all it's MY game, I've paid for it, I should be able to play it anyway I chose!!

I have always played a paragon and I don't think that I should be denied the chance to save the galaxy just because that was the way I chose to play, I don't think anyone should be!!

But if I take a hell of a kicking on the way there...

[Gixxer6Rdr]

No, they shouldn't. Talk about trivializing our "choices" then... not every choice in life has positive/fair outcomes. I hope BW knows not all fans want everything in the game unlocked or available no matter what. Then where's the replayability and differences between playthroughs?

Nope, I want my choices to matter, effect my game, and cause changes.

[ChurchOfZod]

Golden Owl wrote...

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.

Why? Aren't you just wanting to see your own moral judgements foisted on another player in their own game?

Not at all. But if the point of ME3 is to bring an alliance of races to bear against the Reapers, you should have a harder time if you have done nothing but alienate those races for the past 2 games.