701 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Yes but if Bioware decided that the high road is supposed to be easy, what are we going to do about it?

Criticize them. Offer arguments about superior alternatives. Give feedback disuading them from repeating the choice.

[Dean_the_Young]

As for the the thread title, I think it's mis-aimed.

A far better question would be 'what would paragons compromise to keep their morals?'

Lives? Suffering of others? Ingratitude and disdain? Reputation? Honor?

[Laser Beam]

You can't really debate the posters subject of choice. You have some good questions, though a bit complicated for a Video-Game choice (do we even have a change in reputation that's noticeable between Renegade and Paragon?) and pre-determined path.

Modifié par Laser Beam, 10 décembre 2011 - 01:16 .

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yes but if Bioware decided that the high road is supposed to be easy, what are we going to do about it?

Criticize them. Offer arguments about superior alternatives. Give feedback disuading them from repeating the choice.

Critizism mostly only counts of it is backed up by alot of people. What you can do is not buying so they actually feel that they have done something wrong. If you criticize them and still buy the game they have no reason to change. I think most people like the easy road. So if a few people criticize that and still buy the game, Bioware's resume is: Most like it, all buy it. All fine. I don't know why some people think being rude or exceptionally stubborn is going to change any of their opinions. I was in the pre-community to DA2. Nothing we argued there changed what happened to DA2. Then sales dropped, and voila, Bioware reconsiders.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 décembre 2011 - 01:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

'Question', if by you mean throw into doubt in terms of legitimacy, sure.

'Question' in terms of proposing scenarios to see if they would or not is another thing. The Paragon themes are established enough that we can set up Tough Decisions in which 'Paragon' isn't simply 'nice.'

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Critizism mostly only counts of it is backed up my alot of people.

No, not really. It may only achieve something if it is backed up by lots of people, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy or appropriate criticism.

What I meant is, Bioware is now mostly interested in making money. Which requires high sales numbers and as early as possible, best with preorders. If they see this is being jeopardized by their current course of action they will act, otherwise, no need. The thing is not whether your point is valid. The question (for Bioware) is how it will affect their primary objective. Profit. That's not meant to be a rant btw. Just business logic, and Bioware is a business.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yes but if Bioware decided that the high road is supposed to be easy, what are we going to do about it?

Criticize them. Offer arguments about superior alternatives. Give feedback disuading them from repeating the choice.

Critizism mostly only counts of it is backed up by alot of people.

Which is why I pose my criticisms in calm, measured turns that many other people find amiable. I not only share my own view: I help shape the views of others, and the community, by making statements that other people can be inspired to agree with, and later repeat.

I am a force multiplier. My views echo, and are shared by dozens. I shape the multitude, in my own small way.

What you can do is not buying so they actually feel that they have done something wrong. If you criticize them and still buy the game they have no reason to change. I think most people like the easy road. So if a few people criticize that and still buy the game, Bioware's resume is: Most like it, all buy it. All fine.

That's a poor understanding of how feedback works. It's not the people who don't participate that a company listens to: they aren't the audience, and are just more of the super-majority that no company expects to accept. It's feedback from consumers that changes policy.

I don't know why some people think being rude or exceptionally stubborn is going to change any of their opinions. I was in the pre-community to DA2. Nothing we argued there changed what happened to DA2. Then sales dropped, and voila, Bioware reconsiders.

A comedic confusion of correlation and causation.

The pre-release criticisms about the game most people didn't even know aren't what Bioware listened to about DA2. It was the post-release critiques by people who played the game.

[Aumata]

The problem with the whole renegade getting the poop end of the stick is that Bioware choices are artificial. They either the same thing with a different tone, or they mean little as Bioware set the choices to happen regardless of what you made. While the illusion of choice tends to work on rpgs, this is spanning three games with choices affecting the other. This means that the choices would have to matter or expect ****ing on a grand scale.

I predict that in Mass Effect 3 none of the choices that were made in the previous Mass Effect games are gonna matter. This is pretty evident by "perfect ending", multiple ways to affect the galactic war outside of doing the mainstory, and looking at the things they said before the leak broke out such as we fight the rachni even if we kill the queen.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

What I meant is, Bioware is now mostly interested in making money. Which requires high sales numbers and as early as possible, best with preorders. If they see this is being jeopardized by their current course of action they will act, otherwise, no need. The thing is not whether your point is valid.

No, that does not make my point any less valid, it just makes it less appealing.

I believe a better game would garner even better sales. At the very least it would not diminish sales.

Well ... I don't really think, especially in RPG genre, better games garner better sales per se. Or why wasn't Planescape:Torment for example more successful? I couldn't say why people buy RPGs or Bioware games. Of the millions that do only a minority ever voices their opinion. I would guess Bioware has more data to make sense of it than I.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The pre-release criticisms about the game most people didn't even know aren't what Bioware listened to about DA2. It was the post-release critiques by people who played the game.

Well and did the post-release critiques by people who played DA:O influence the development of DA2? If so then something went horribly wrong.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As for the the thread title, I think it's mis-aimed.

A far better question would be 'what would paragons compromise to keep their morals?'

Lives? Suffering of others? Ingratitude and disdain? Reputation? Honor?

Conveniently, my morality is "that which I believe will lead to the best possible outcome." So it could theoretically be any of them, but only if it's an absolute necessity.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The pre-release criticisms about the game most people didn't even know aren't what Bioware listened to about DA2. It was the post-release critiques by people who played the game.

Well and did the post-release critiques by people who played DA:O influence the development of DA2? If so then something went horribly wrong.

Most the pre-release criticisms were horribly off-base and had little to do with was actually wrong with the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Conveniently, my morality is "that which I believe will lead to the best possible outcome." So it could theoretically be any of them, but only if it's an absolute necessity.

Effectively meaningless, as far as moral designs go, unless you define what 'best' means.

Really, in abstract that's just emotional hedonism: the 'best possible' is synonymous for 'what makes me feel best.'

It also negates the difference between prospect and retrospect, but you've always worn the 20-20 glasses.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 décembre 2011 - 03:41 .

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Conveniently, my morality is "that which I believe will lead to the best possible outcome." So it could theoretically be any of them, but only if it's an absolute necessity.

Effectively meaningless, as far as moral designs go, unless you define what 'best' means.

Really, in abstract that's just emotional hedonism: the 'best possible' is synonymous for 'what makes me feel best.'

It also negates the difference between prospect and retrospect, but you've always worn the 20-20 glasses.

Well you know maybe you think too much.

Take it as you will, for your 'ideal' or 'canon' playthrough you already *know* the best course of action. Frankly because you have played the game several times. So whatever your choice is, save the galaxy or let it burn, you already know all the right boxes to check to get there. To compare this to reality or bringing in real life measure doesn't work well and I fear leaves you with a wrong picture of people. Irl I would do alot of things differently than Shepard. To begin with I would never again join the military.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 décembre 2011 - 03:48 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Irony aside, no. I don't metagame.

Xil does, but that's her perogative.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Conveniently, my morality is "that which I believe will lead to the best possible outcome." So it could theoretically be any of them, but only if it's an absolute necessity.

Effectively meaningless, as far as moral designs go, unless you define what 'best' means.

Really, in abstract that's just emotional hedonism: the 'best possible' is synonymous for 'what makes me feel best.'

It also negates the difference between prospect and retrospect, but you've always worn the 20-20 glasses.

All decisions are emotional hedonism; you do things ultimately because they'll make you feel a certain way. As for what "best" means, it's "that which would lead to the greatest probability of further pleasure and/or lack of pain for the greatest number of people."

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

All decisions are emotional hedonism; you do things ultimately because they'll make you feel a certain way.

That's not emotional hedonism, Xil.

You're confusing the theory of maximum utility with hedonism.

As for what "best" means, it's "that which would lead to the greatest probability of further pleasure and/or lack of pain for the greatest number of people."

And yet that's still so vague as to be meaningless. It's also one you've gone against in the decision phase, only to justify retroactively based on results rather than prospects. 20-20 and all that.

[Xilizhra]

That's not emotional hedonism, Xil.

You're confusing the theory of maximum utility with hedonism.

Then enlighten me.

And yet that's still so vague as to be meaningless. It's also one you've gone against in the decision phase, only to justify retroactively based on results rather than prospects. 20-20 and all that.

It has to be vague to fit all possible situations. Also, I've given reasons for all of my decisions that don't rely on metagaming.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Which is why I pose my criticisms in calm, measured turns that many other people find amiable. I not only share my own view: I help shape the views of others, and the community, by making statements that other people can be inspired to agree with, and later repeat.

I am a force multiplier. My views echo, and are shared by dozens. I shape the multitude, in my own small way.

And it may be worth nothing but I respect you for it. Snide insults are unnecessary to proving one's points and only serve to lessen them (and I do this myself so I admire your restraint).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 décembre 2011 - 04:06 .

[capn233]

These threads are always fun because the persecution of renegades is such an interesting topic. So which choices for renegade have actually backfired?

By my count it is about the same as the number of paragon choices that have. Zero.

Maybe certain characters **** at you about it, but that is it. You can still complete the same missions either way, the plot advances in more or less the same way. And before the ME1 cameos for minor characters is mentioned again, none of those are really a renegade/paragon difference and are simply a result of if you did those missions and if the character is alive.

Fist: You can keep him alive as renegade. If a paragon takes Wrex with him he will be killed.

Helena Blake: accepting the mission is actually renegade. You can keep her alive with intimidate. You can tell her you are arresting her without charm (paragon) and have to shoot her.

Conrad Verner: You can be mean or nice to him... the plot flag is screwed up so you always shoved a gun in his face anyway.

Rachni emissary: I can't believe if there was no rachni I don't get someone delivering a message from no-one! There should be someone else supporting my decision when it wasn't in the least bit common knowledge.

Rachni: Don't know what will happen but so far no repercussions for killing them off.

Giana Parisini: You can end up with her not dead as a renegade. She won't be happy that you didn't help her. Granted, it is hard to get her killed as a straight paragon.

Shiala/Human colonist: Again, this has to do with if you imported a game from ME1 moreso than a renegade vs paragon. If you killed Shiala she does not rise from the grave.

Wrex: You can keep Wrex alive as a renegade with intimidate / doing his mission. If you killed him then he doesn't magically appear. Para with insufficient charm or who didn't do his mission may not keep him alive.  If he is dead you get a different Clan leader that doesn't change the game much.

Let the Council Die: Don't get to see the councilors. Doesn't really affect the plot so much. You didn't like them so why do you care?  Also, you wanted increased power for humanity and now you got it.

In ME2 you don't have any repercussions for being renegade. Sure the squad doesn't like that you saved he base but big deal. And if you are talking pure renegade v pure paragon you actually had an advantage in that renegade interrupts had a habbit of making fights slightly easier whereas paragon interrupts were as likely to be hugs.

Modifié par capn233, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:06 .

[Abraham_uk]

capn233 wrote...
In ME2 you don't have any repercussions for being renegade. Sure the squad doesn't like that you saved he base but big deal. And if you are talking pure renegade v pure paragon you actually had an advantage in that renegade interrupts had a habbit of making fights slightly easier whereas paragon interrupts were as likely to be hugs.

You have a fair point. There doesn't seem to be any consequences for your actions. All actions, paragon, renegade or otherwise should have huge consequences in ME 3. I hope. I want both paragon and renegade decisions to suffer in different but equally horrible ways .

[chaosomegas]

no we will not when comes to reaper war we must win. the plan is we fight or we die