631 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

Wulfram wrote...

Done wrong, this could be pretty annoying. Arbitrarily having dire consequences appear without good reason to expect them is frustrating, and creates great annoyance on replays - do I metagame and go with what I know is the best choice, or make the decision my Shepard would make without foreknowledge.

I'd rather have a difficult moral choice with clear consequences for both sides than a "gotcha" moment later in the game.

That's the problem exactly though - the consequences of such decisions are rarely clear.

Saving the Rachni queen versus killing it - either way, the consequences are not clear.  One is riskier than the other, but might just have a positive payoff.

Saving the collector base versus destroying it - again, either way, the consequences are not clear.  One is riskier than the other, but might just have a positive payoff.

Letting Balak go versus killing him - same thing again.

I'm not advocating that they make the game impossibly difficult or automatically fail you based on prior decisions, but there should definately be clear and tangible consequences for the decisions that you have made.  Some will work out just the way you thought they would, some won't.  That's life.

[marshalleck]

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Modifié par marshalleck, 24 août 2011 - 12:02 .

[ddv.rsa]

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Sadly true. DAO was the one exception.

[Boiny Bunny]

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

One of the reasons that KOTOR is my favorite Bioware game.  Despite there being more 'good' characters than bad in that game, being evil often had extremely satisfactory plot consequences and rewards - not better, but on par - in a different way, with being good.

DA:O was also an exception - given that it essentially did away with morality entirely - something I quite enjoyed.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 24 août 2011 - 12:08 .

[Seboist]

ddv.rsa wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Sadly true. DAO was the one exception.

DA:O had more player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire ME series. It also had balanced alliances for the player unlike in ME where Paragon is drowning in allies even if it makes no sense while those who should be supportive of Renegade (Krogan) aren't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Done wrong, this could be pretty annoying. Arbitrarily having dire consequences appear without good reason to expect them is frustrating, and creates great annoyance on replays - do I metagame and go with what I know is the best choice, or make the decision my Shepard would make without foreknowledge.

I'd rather have a difficult moral choice with clear consequences for both sides than a "gotcha" moment later in the game.

That's the problem exactly though - the consequences of such decisions are rarely clear.

Saving the Rachni queen versus killing it - either way, the consequences are not clear.  One is riskier than the other, but might just have a positive payoff.

Saving the collector base versus destroying it - again, either way, the consequences are not clear.  One is riskier than the other, but might just have a positive payoff.

Letting Balak go versus killing him - same thing again.

I'm not advocating that they make the game impossibly difficult or automatically fail you based on prior decisions, but there should definately be clear and tangible consequences for the decisions that you have made.  Some will work out just the way you thought they would, some won't.  That's life.

Good point.
However, the viability of the risks depend on how much you need the payoff. And probabiltiy too.

I'd say that in order to tand a cahnce agaisnt the reaper, every resource must be mobilized. Every gun, every ship, every warm body, every alt piece of information - everything.
Anything that stands a chance of increasing your resources is a must. The Rachnii, the Geth, the CB - all risks that one normally wouldn't take - yet given the situation should take.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 24 août 2011 - 12:41 .

[littlezack]

Seboist wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Sadly true. DAO was the one exception.

DA:O had more player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire ME series. It also had balanced alliances for the player unlike in ME where Paragon is drowning in allies even if it makes no sense while those who should be supportive of Renegade (Krogan) aren't.

How'd you get ME3 so fast?

[tee_bird]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

If it means that always picking the blue option without thinking at all will not lead to the best outcome for once, I'm all for it.

I think I recall a Gamescom answer that states this exactly.  Choices in ME3 won't be so black and white, and the paragon answer isn't always the best.

[Ianamus]

I'm hoping that all important choices from ME1 onward have both positive and negative repercussions in ME3, and that choices like Quarians/Geth or which species to save over others will not be tied to the paragon/renegade system. I see it as both paragon and renegade beating the Reapers with the same number of losses (But in different places) while only those who don't ever do certain missions or pick an incredibly poor set of decisions get a 'bad' ending.

I'm not sure that the paragon/renegade system was ever a good idea in the first place. I think that the Dragon Age series handles it really well: You pick whatever options you want without any morality scale, but all of your companions have their own scales (like/dislike and friendship/rivalry) which change depending on how you act.

[Killer3000ad]

Oh boy. I got 9 playthroughs of generally paragon choices all ready to go try out in March 2012, perhaps I need to do another one from ME1 to ME2 and pick the not so nice options, just in case, like saving the Rachni queen, saving the council, blowing up the collector base, letting Balak go, not telling the Quarian admirals the truth about Tali's dad's experiments, rewriting the Geth, all result in me facepalming.

[SGT WEAR SK1]

I have ten playthroughs of ME2, some carried over from ME1, some played through the comic on 360..almost none of them are strictly Renegade or strictly Paragon. I made choices as I would make them whilst leaning one way or the other. Interested to see what each playthrough and the choices I made will cause in ME3 and who knows, this statement may pertain strictly with choices yet to be made in the third game. As with anything in this life, time will tell, lol..

[Xilizhra]

Seboist wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Sadly true. DAO was the one exception.

DA:O had more player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire ME series. It also had balanced alliances for the player unlike in ME where Paragon is drowning in allies even if it makes no sense while those who should be supportive of Renegade (Krogan) aren't.

Krogan aren't supportive of anyone.

[Ianamus]

ddv.rsa wrote...

DA:O had more player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire ME series. It also had balanced alliances for the player unlike in ME where Paragon is drowning in allies even if it makes no sense while those who should be supportive of Renegade (Krogan) aren't.

I though curing the genophage was always the paragon option?

[Ieldra]

Wulfram wrote...
Done wrong, this could be pretty annoying. Arbitrarily having dire consequences appear without good reason to expect them is frustrating, and creates great annoyance on replays - do I metagame and go with what I know is the best choice, or make the decision my Shepard would make without foreknowledge.

I'd rather have a difficult moral choice with clear consequences for both sides than a "gotcha" moment later in the game.

The problem is that you do not know the long-term consequences of every decision. And if you don't know, then you have no way to select the "right" decision for the long-term.

One interesting example is in DAO: who do you choose for King? The conniving reactionary or the violent revolutionary. Most people will feel that the former is the better choice because he's less violent and upholds the status quo (which are both poweful intuitions). But reality doesn't conform to our intuitions. That's the point made by the outcome of that decision, and that's what I would want ME3 to occasionally make as well.

[Xilizhra]

I thought most people did choose Bhelen?

[Wulfram]

The Rachni turning out to be hostile wouldn't be a "gotcha" because the risk was well established in the game. Though really they shouldn't be in a position to be that significant to the course of the war either way after only 2 years - IIRC the Salarian councillor suggests sparing them might be regretted by our grandchildren, which even with Salarian generations implies quite a bit more time.

Cerberus being evil, and prone to using technology in reckless and ethically objectionable ways was pretty obvious and Shepard should reasonably have been aware that handing the base over to them might have consequences. But them all suddenly converting en masse to helping the Reapers wipe out all life in the galaxy does seem like it would be something of a poorly executed "gotcha".

[Seboist]

Xilizhra wrote...

Seboist wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly, I'm just assuming from looking at Bioware's history that they're going to **** all over the Renegade playthrough. From Baldur's Gate forward up to and including Mass Effect 2, it's always the lawful good/light side/paragon side of their games which receive most developer time and attention.

Sadly true. DAO was the one exception.

DA:O had more player choice and outcomes in that one game than the entire ME series. It also had balanced alliances for the player unlike in ME where Paragon is drowning in allies even if it makes no sense while those who should be supportive of Renegade (Krogan) aren't.

Krogan aren't supportive of anyone.

Due to unimaginative writers and devs that have the choices existing in complete vacuums from each other.

A renegade who killed the council and the rachni queen should have the respect of the Krogan.

[Xilizhra]

Due to unimaginative writers and devs that have the choices existing in complete vacuums from each other.

A renegade who killed the council and the rachni queen should have the respect of the Krogan.

What concrete effect would it have other than making them enjoy killing you more?

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
I thought most people did choose Bhelen?

Possibly. But how many did that without knowing the consequences?

It's easy to justify the decision in hindsight after all, with Harrowmont's support for the caste system and keeping contact with other races restricted. Without foreknowledge, it's not so easy to see that both don't appear to be good choices and the decision is a gamble. 

[Ieldra]

Wulfram wrote...
The Rachni turning out to be hostile wouldn't be a "gotcha" because the risk was well established in the game. Though really they shouldn't be in a position to be that significant to the course of the war either way after only 2 years - IIRC the Salarian councillor suggests sparing them might be regretted by our grandchildren, which even with Salarian generations implies quite a bit more time.

Cerberus being evil, and prone to using technology in reckless and ethically objectionable ways was pretty obvious and Shepard should reasonably have been aware that handing the base over to them might have consequences. But them all suddenly converting en masse to helping the Reapers wipe out all life in the galaxy does seem like it would be something of a poorly executed "gotcha".

Absolutely. Cerberus doing horrible stuff with the base is a reasonable expectation, but Cerberus helping the Reapers makes no sense at all. Which is why I hope that there will be some other motive behind the appearance. 

[Seboist]

Xilizhra wrote...

Due to unimaginative writers and devs that have the choices existing in complete vacuums from each other.

A renegade who killed the council and the rachni queen should have the respect of the Krogan.

What concrete effect would it have other than making them enjoy killing you more?

Based on what? Those two decisions on top of Wrex and the Shaman vouching for said Shepard would make him/her a legend and a hero to them.

[Xilizhra]

Seboist wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Due to unimaginative writers and devs that have the choices existing in complete vacuums from each other.

A renegade who killed the council and the rachni queen should have the respect of the Krogan.

What concrete effect would it have other than making them enjoy killing you more?

Based on what? Those two decisions on top of Wrex and the Shaman vouching for said Shepard would make him/her a legend and a hero to them.

I really doubt it. Killing one alien would lead to total heroism?
But it doesn't matter because respect from krogan is...  low on my list of priorities.

[Seboist]

Xilizhra wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Due to unimaginative writers and devs that have the choices existing in complete vacuums from each other.

A renegade who killed the council and the rachni queen should have the respect of the Krogan.

What concrete effect would it have other than making them enjoy killing you more?

Based on what? Those two decisions on top of Wrex and the Shaman vouching for said Shepard would make him/her a legend and a hero to them.

I really doubt it. Killing one alien would lead to total heroism?
But it doesn't matter because respect from krogan is...  low on my list of priorities.

That "one alien" would have led to the rebirth of a race that had previously killed millions of Krogan. Shepard is essentially pissing on the graves of their ancestors if she decides to let her go.

Which is what Wrex says if Shepard does that in his presence and vows that they'll put an end to them again......... before he conveniently forgets about it in the next game of course.

[Wulfram]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem is that you do not know the long-term consequences of every decision. And if you don't know, then you have no way to select the "right" decision for the long-term.

One interesting example is in DAO: who do you choose for King? The conniving reactionary or the violent revolutionary. Most people will feel that the former is the better choice because he's less violent and upholds the status quo (which are both poweful intuitions). But reality doesn't conform to our intuitions. That's the point made by the outcome of that decision, and that's what I would want ME3 to occasionally make as well.

To me that was a really truly awfully done choice.  Mostly because Bhelen isn't established as a revolutionary, but as a cruel, weak, transparently dishonest princeling whose only claim to the throne is his parentage.

Having everything he touch magically turn to gold in the epilogue, while Harrowmont, who was supposed to be an experienced politician and general, fails at everything, is just aggravating.  It would have been far better if they'd instead had both choices be moderately successful in their own terms - Harrowmont secures stability because he doesn't threaten the nobility, but there's no reform, Bhelen achieves some minor reforms at the cost of instability and tyranny.  And it would have helped a lot if Bhelen seemed vaguely competent during the game.