631 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Something has to be default. Complaining that Default Shep apparently came to the same conclusion as you seems a bit strange

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've always been bemused by people who think that people who are killed should have no reflection later.

Revenge stories never occur to them? People angry that they are dead, or grateful? Others who benefited, or were worse off?

Given that the only way to kill Gianna, for example, made a great boon for Lorik Qui'in... why shouldn't killing Gianna have been reflected by Lorik?

If we killed the Rachni Queen, why shouldn't there be a Krogan to thank us (or berate us) for finishing off the Krogan's historic enemy be a counter-part to the Rachni Ambassador? Both hypothetical Krogan and Rachni Ambassador would be cameos made up to represent a choice rather than a return character themselves.

Why should Shiala be the personal connection to Feros in the first place? Elizabeth was a named character with nearly the exact same motivations that Shiala has for representing/helping the colonists, and Elizabeth had the added aspect of not being able to be killed.

Killing a character is never JUST about that character returning: it's also about the effects and alternatives. Sometimes killing a person should be for the best in noticed effects, and sometimes it shouldn't. But it should never be impossible to reflect it: you can nearly always find a basis or alternative.

Especially Rana Thanoplis's dialogue concerning Grunt and Okeer: character exposition should never be tied to unrelated characters' survival. That's just a bad flaw of story writing.

This.

What we get is a black hole of nothing where the game acts as if what we did never even happened.

I'd like to know the effects of my Shepard killing Fist and Helena Blake like did crime go down? Did another gang/crime lord take their place? Did ANYTHING happen? According to ME2.... nope.

[Ryzaki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


HOW SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEEING THAT PERSON AGAIN?

Lord, the stupidity is unbelievable. Do you know what ACKNOWLEDGMENT means? At all?
Doesn't matter who acknowledges or how - only that it does happen.

For example, if you killed Fisk, Harkin might mention it when you talk to him (something like "art you the one that killed Fisk?".. or something like that). Or you get an e-mail. Or you see a news report that mentions what you did (example - a new report on Novaria) Or something. There's a million ways player actions - paragon OR renegade - can be acknowledged.

ANDI'M FINE WITH THAT BUT STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED WITHOUT GETTING IT. 

Shepard saving Kirahe? I don't remeber that being acknowledged. I don't throw a HISSY FIT AND INSIST I'M BEING PUNISHED FOR MY CHOICES. 

[Wulfram]

Ryzaki wrote...

Shepard saving Kirahe? I don't remeber that being acknowledged.

Conversation with Mordin?

[outmane]

Wulfram wrote...

Something has to be default. Complaining that Default Shep apparently came to the same conclusion as you seems a bit strange

Id even say... ending up with something close to the default setting could be interpreted as having made the most logical choices. Hence why they made them 'canon'.

Just a thought. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

Something has to be default. Complaining that Default Shep apparently came to the same conclusion as you seems a bit strange

Neither Paragon or Renegade has to be default when an option is optional, nor does the 'default' in a pure binary (story-mission choice) need to be 'absent.'

A modest solution would be a trinary: Paragon acknowledgement, and Renegade acknowledgement, and default (did not play game/do mission). An absence of reflective-content should be relegated ot either default cases (did not do a choice/mission) or if the player did not play the previous game. Story choices that have been determined (by playthrough or comic) should always be reflected equally in presence, if not nature of consequence.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I've always been bemused by people who think that people who are killed should have no reflection later.

Revenge stories never occur to them? People angry that they are dead, or grateful? Others who benefited, or were worse off?

Given that the only way to kill Gianna, for example, made a great boon for Lorik Qui'in... why shouldn't killing Gianna have been reflected by Lorik?

If we killed the Rachni Queen, why shouldn't there be a Krogan to thank us (or berate us) for finishing off the Krogan's historic enemy be a counter-part to the Rachni Ambassador? Both hypothetical Krogan and Rachni Ambassador would be cameos made up to represent a choice rather than a return character themselves.

Why should Shiala be the personal connection to Feros in the first place? Elizabeth was a named character with nearly the exact same motivations that Shiala has for representing/helping the colonists, and Elizabeth had the added aspect of not being able to be killed.

Killing a character is never JUST about that character returning: it's also about the effects and alternatives. Sometimes killing a person should be for the best in noticed effects, and sometimes it shouldn't. But it should never be impossible to reflect it: you can nearly always find a basis or alternative.

Especially Rana Thanoplis's dialogue concerning Grunt and Okeer: character exposition should never be tied to unrelated characters' survival. That's just a bad flaw of story writing.

THat would occur with the paragon choices as well. Revenge for a death vs revenge for taking away someone's status. Either way one way or the other it's never going to be an equal amount of content. (would be nice if renegade got more on occassion and paragon got more though). 

I've never killed Gianni (not even sure how) so..not sure about that. I did side with lorik once (seemed the most renegade thing to do to me) but she still showed up. 

And this Krogan magically knows that the Rachni Queen was saved? Really?  Would make more sense as someone from Binary Helix. 

Shiala should've been replaced by Elizabeth true. 

And sometimes the alternatives will seem ridculous and won't fit properly into the story. Like Shepard being the only one other than his crew to see the Rachni Queen. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 07:11 .

[Ryzaki]

Wulfram wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Shepard saving Kirahe? I don't remeber that being acknowledged.

Conversation with Mordin?

Not sure but I recall getting that conversation with one of my characters who let him die. It's only about Shepard *meeting* Kirahe not about Shepard saving him. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 07:09 .

[Xilizhra]

The trouble is that if they did acknowledge all the Renegade choices in the way you say they should, the default Shepard wouldn't reflect any canon from the previous game and the plot would make no sense. The only way to solve this would be to stick a Genesis comic in all copies of ME2, which could have been a better solution, perhaps...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ryzaki wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


HOW SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEEING THAT PERSON AGAIN?

Lord, the stupidity is unbelievable. Do you know what ACKNOWLEDGMENT means? At all?
Doesn't matter who acknowledges or how - only that it does happen.

For example, if you killed Fisk, Harkin might mention it when you talk to him (something like "art you the one that killed Fisk?".. or something like that). Or you get an e-mail. Or you see a news report that mentions what you did (example - a new report on Novaria) Or something. There's a million ways player actions - paragon OR renegade - can be acknowledged.

ANDI'M FINE WITH THAT BUT STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED WITHOUT GETTING IT. 

Shepard saving Kirahe? I don't remeber that being acknowledged. I don't throw a HISSY FIT AND INSIST I'M BEING PUNISHED FOR MY CHOICES. 

Are you even reading before hitting hte reply bottun?

Because you seem to agree that the game should acknowledge choices and then whine when people complain that their choices weren't acknowledged...

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HOW SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEEING THAT PERSON AGAIN?

Lord, the stupidity is unbelievable. Do you know what ACKNOWLEDGMENT means? At all?
Doesn't matter who acknowledges or how - only that it does happen.

For example, if you killed Fisk, Harkin might mention it when you talk to him (something like "art you the one that killed Fisk?".. or something like that). Or you get an e-mail. Or you see a news report that mentions what you did (example - a new report on Novaria) Or something. There's a million ways player actions - paragon OR renegade - can be acknowledged.

Newsflash. The Mass Effect universe isn't orbiting around Shepard. Why should Harkin even give a damn about who killed Fist?

Also, it doesn't really take a reference from the game in form of a minor character returning for the player to understand that he/she did something good if you caught/killed/stopped a crime lord or saved a colony. I don't need the game to tell me that I did good, I'd rather see the aftermath of those decisions, which all have variating time schedules. Some were resolved in ME2, some will come to conclusion in ME3.

That's the way it is, and if you don't like it, play the game in another way or simply accept it.

[Ryzaki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Are you even reading before hitting hte reply bottun?

Because you seem to agree that the game should acknowledge choices and then whine when people complain that their choices weren't acknowledged...

No  I complain when people whine that they're being PUNISHED by not having their choices acknowledged in big bold lettering. 

My renegade felt his actions were acknowledged by the fact that those people were GONE. 

My paragon would've been happy by not having any of those stupid cameos (save Conrad because that one amused me). As far as I was concerned the news reports (and the council meeting which should've been for both dead council and alive council) was enough. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 août 2011 - 07:14 .

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The trouble is that if they did acknowledge all the Renegade choices in the way you say they should, the default Shepard wouldn't reflect any canon from the previous game ...

All default Shepard needs to do is reflect the over all plot from the first game. He went to Feros, Noveria, Virmire, and Ilos. The fates of those worlds can be left blank. Players who want details would be encouraged to go back and play that game.

There'd just be no mention what-so-ever of the rachni queen, or of Wrex, or Zhu's Hope, or any of the optional quests the characters can do.

And thus the default Shepard would be treated as having made no decisions at all, effectively having skipped over them through tampering with the universe somehow and leaving the plot an incoherent mess. Doing this well is impossible.

[JGDD]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Shepard saving Kirahe? I don't remeber that being acknowledged.

Conversation with Mordin?

Not sure but I recall getting that conversation with one of my characters who let him die. It's only about Shepard *meeting* Kirahe not about Shepard saving him. 

Mordin comments either way about him. Like one line of dialogue difference.

[TheOptimist]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Way to weasel your way out of the discussion.

Your sarcasm and humor doesn't do anything to advance your position.

I was complimenting someone else, I'll get to you.  And yes, yes they do.

The disparity between Renegade and Paragon is this: Renegades don't benefit much from the import feature. I shouldn't need to explain this, but the ability to import your characters and decisions into future Mass Effect games was the selling point behind the first game.

They don't? I remember them getting extra levels, extra resources, extra money, and extra renegade points.  Not to mention a cameo or 5.

In the end though Renegades largely got cheated out of it. That's no fun. That's bad game design.

Cheated out of what, not seeing people you eliminated in the first game? You DO know what 'dead' means, right?

When my decisions wind up not even being referenced in the second game, or they wind up being identical to the default, then it makes me feel like I wasted my time. I feel cheated.

How are they not referenced?  The person you killed is not there to talk to you.  Feros' destruction, the council, Wrex, Conrad, are all there for you to reference, not to mention all the injoke references to the first game. It's like if I complained that Ashley didn't say anything different to me than the default guy because she was the default Virmire survivor.

This continues to gnaw at me as I go into the third game because I fear the same thing will happen again. This gets in the way of my ability to role play, which is one of the main ways I have fun.

Hate to break it to you, but if you killed someone in ME 2, they're still gonna be dead in ME 3.  Hope I didn't spoil that one for you.

If you can't recognize that this is a problem then you're a fanboy and a meanspirited ****** who wants to ruin other player's fun for no real reason other than malice.

Oh no, namecalling. Help!  And speaking of ruining other peoples fun, wasn't there something about wanting peoples decisions to backfire so they'll be punished for making decisions you disagreed with?  I know I didn't advocate that, but it seems like someone here did...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HOW SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SEEING THAT PERSON AGAIN?

Lord, the stupidity is unbelievable. Do you know what ACKNOWLEDGMENT means? At all?
Doesn't matter who acknowledges or how - only that it does happen.

For example, if you killed Fisk, Harkin might mention it when you talk to him (something like "art you the one that killed Fisk?".. or something like that). Or you get an e-mail. Or you see a news report that mentions what you did (example - a new report on Novaria) Or something. There's a million ways player actions - paragon OR renegade - can be acknowledged.

Newsflash. The Mass Effect universe isn't orbiting around Shepard. Why should Harkin even give a damn about who killed Fist?

Also, it doesn't really take a reference from the game in form of a minor character returning for the player to understand that he/she did something good if you caught/killed/stopped a crime lord or saved a colony. I don't need the game to tell me that I did good, I'd rather see the aftermath of those decisions, which all have variating time schedules. Some were resolved in ME2, some will come to conclusion in ME3.

That's the way it is, and if you don't like it, play the game in another way or simply accept it.

Newsflash. If the game doens't revolve around Shpe, why are all the ther cameos there? Why is that asari from the Thorian there? Doesn't the player understand he did something good?

Don't bring up arguments that backfire this spectacularly.
Actually, go ahead and do that. It's fun to watch you put your foot in your mouth.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And thus the default Shepard would be treated as having made no decisions at all...

Exactly. If players want to make decisions in ME1 that will affect ME2 then they go back and play ME1 or they use the comic.

There won't be anything inconherent about it. Where are you getting that from?

Jesus Christ.

Frankly, that paragraph when you first fire up the game that explains the attack on the Citadel is all the explanation players need for ME1. The details don't need to be included, unless you import, in which case your character continues to grow based on their experiences in ME1. The galaxy as well continues to be shaped by the choices you made there.

So in a default Shepard game, what happened to the rachni queen?

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Newsflash. If the game doens't revolve around Shpe, why are all the ther cameos there? Why is that asari from the Thorian there? Doesn't the player understand he did something good?

Don't bring up arguments that backfire this spectacularly.
Actually, go ahead and do that. It's fun to watch you put your foot in your mouth.

It's just as fun as watching you complain about something so trivial, just because you need the game to tell you that you were a good boy for once.

Why Shiala was there? Didn't you pay attention to what she said? She had problems with the after effects of the Thorian spores.

Sorry, the universe itself isn't orbiting around Shepard, as it's quite capable of managing just fine without him/her.

The game is, however.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 août 2011 - 07:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...


THat would occur with the paragon choices as well. Revenge for a death vs revenge for taking away someone's status. Either way one way or the other it's never going to be an equal amount of content.

As long as there's something, and the overall design is balanced to not make a 'better' or 'worse', individual choices don't need equality per choice. For example, I don't demand that there should have been an equal payout if you killed the Rachni, but that Krogan or some Noveria executive on Illium giving Shepard some credits (or even a tech upgrade) as 'thanks' would have been a much better balance: a small, plot-minor gain for Renegades in ME2 balanced by the potential great and significant free ally in ME3 for the Paragons.

(Though personally I would have made enslaving the Thorian a Renegade-choice on Feros as a means of getting the Cipher: Renegade Shep takes the Thorian's cipher and leaves it to the Alliance in exchange for its life, enslaving it and then using the Thorian's ability for the Alliance in making Feros a boom-town colony paragons would miss out on. )

I've never killed Gianni (not even sure how) so..not sure about that. I did side with lorik once (seemed the most renegade thing to do to me) but he still showed up.

You can kill Gianni if you tell her to go arrest Annoleus and also warn Annoleus that she's going to do so. They kill eachother, leaving you a garage pass to pick up off the floor.

It's not a common choice taken, and as an individual choice it doesn't grate me much, but I do have something of a soft spot for Lorik Quin.

And this Krogan magically knows that the Rachni Queen was saved? Really? 

I assume you mean killed, since the Rachni Queen being saved would be reflected by the Rachni Ambassador. And since the is both galactic acknowledgement that the Rachni were resurrected and wiped out again (galactic news) and there were witnesses/people aware (people in the Noveria labs who survived), all it would take to justify was one Krogan with an ear to the grape-vine.

Alternatively, a Noveria-exec on buisness to Illium, as I outlined above.

Shiala should've been replaced by Elizabeth true.

Agreed. Which is not to say Shiala couldn't have had a role, mind you: I think Shiala coming to Illium if she survived was good. Both share motivations for wanting to help the colonists. The way I'd have done it, Shiala would be more comfortable and composed on Illium compared to Elizabeth (who gets flustered by the anti-alien asari). Likewise, Shiala would be more mature and composed in her invitation with Shepard, while Elizabeth could have been more flustered and embarassed, as befits the younger/out-of-her-league girl.

And sometimes the alternatives will seem ridculous and won't fit properly into the story. 

Then make one that isn't ridiculous and will fit. Or, if it comes to that, revise the story. Mass Effect is supposed to be a story about reflecting choices, after all.

Not, mind you, that there are many choices where an alternative would be ridiculous.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ryzaki wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Are you even reading before hitting hte reply bottun?

Because you seem to agree that the game should acknowledge choices and then whine when people complain that their choices weren't acknowledged...

No  I complain when people whine that they're being PUNISHED by not having their choices acknowledged in big bold lettering. 

My renegade felt his actions were acknowledged by the fact that those people were GONE. 

My paragon would've been happy by not having any of those stupid cameos (save Conrad because that one amused me). As far as I was concerned the news reports (and the council meeting which should've been for both dead council and alive council) was enough. 

I'll put things in BIG, BOLD LETTERING to EMPHASIZE things that should be EMPAHASIZED. Yet somehow it still goes over your head.

I don't acare about your paragon or renegade. For all I care you can be happy with eating dung. Plenty of others are not.

I'll complain about it if I want, and I have every right to.
Feel free to whine about it if you wish.

The irony is that I don't even care about it much, as most of my actions are paragon anyway, but those that complain do have a valid point. You don't. And therefore I will stand with them.