1127 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Dragon XIX wrote...

Don't worry op, Bioware almost never changes the outcome eitherway.

And you say that because?

Call it "historical precedent".

You mean previous games that were never promised to have consequences on your actions through entire playthrough and with story they had it wouldn't make sense to be affected by those actions without being contrived, except that in some point in future they will and that point of future is Mass Effect 3 where Bioware is promising that?

[goofyomnivore]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Mesina2, but are you saying they never said there would be consequences?

Wasn't the main selling point of Mass Effect about difficult choices and consequences? I think they even made a trailer highlighting that.

[CroGamer002]

^They said tough decisions in game, never said consequences that will change the game.

For Mass Effect 3 they are saying that.

[goofyomnivore]

I'm speaking of the foreshadowing in game as well. The NPCs pretty much tell you to be careful at every whim and be prepared for consequences. However they almost never happen.

[Ieldra]

LucidStrike wrote...
A lot of people, including the OP, are really oversimplifying things. THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT KEEP AN ETHICAL SCOREBOARD OR ANYTHING. The universe does not at all balance out ethical choices. The. Universe. Does. NOT. Care. It's all just chaos, determinant but not predictable. It's all a matter of context.

What that means for Shepard is that, yes, it may very well be the case that paragon choices ARE better choices in general, IN CONTEXT. Vice versa. #JustSayin

Since it's a game tho, BioWare should lead it all towards more or less equivalent endings I suppose.

Now *you* are oversimpliflying things. Exactly because the universe does not keep tabs should the consequences of decisions not be totally one-sided. Here is why:

The Paragon path has mostly decisions that favor what' intuitively morally right. If we were living in the world where that always has the best consequences, there would be no conflict about these things at all - the expedient and the right, the pragmatic and the good would always be in harmony. They clearly aren't, which means that any universe where intuitively good decisions always have the best outcome is different from ours in a fundamental way - a fairy-tale universe, in other words. Now there are nice and engaging stories playing in such universes, but Mass Effect has never been one of those. Or rather, it has not been marketed as being one of these. How much of a fairy-tale universe the ME universe will become, that remains to be seen - ME3 will tell.

Or in short: if Renegade decisions never result in anything good, there is no point in making them expect for the lulz. I think there are only few players who want to be a jerk for no reason at all, while there are quite a few who would sacrifice intuitive morality for an overall better outcome.
 

[CroGamer002]

strive wrote...

I'm speaking of the foreshadowing in game as well. The NPCs pretty much tell you to be careful at every whim and be prepared for consequences. However they almost never happen.

Because those consequences wouldn't fit story of ME1 and ME2.

But for ME3 story it definitely does fit and it's promised from Bioware this time.

[Lumikki]

I disagree, because paragon and renegade aren't same, action what they do aren't same kind. So reaction to those actions should not be same, as consequences. Both how ever, should have both kind of consequences, but NOT EQUAL amount.

Sometimes killing someone could be right thing to do and sometimes saving someone could be wrong. But that's just sometimes, it should never be EQUAL.

Paragon and Renegade is more like attitude what is choosen. How soft or hard you want to deal situations. Both travels same journey, but how it's done is the question.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 décembre 2011 - 01:27 .

[Andorfiend]

Mesina2 wrote...

^They said tough decisions in game, never said consequences that will change the game.

For Mass Effect 3 they are saying that.

Yes. Yes they did. That was the entire selling point of the series. That promise, and that promise alone was what brought me to Mass Effect specifically and BioWare in general.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

For a risk vs. risk decision, such as Collector Base, the consequences should be as close to equal as they can make it: pros and cons for both sides, only pros for both sides, only cons for both sides.

No.

Low risk,  High gains (keep base) vs. High risk, no gains (destroy base) should bite paragons in the ass. Teh consequence should hit htem like the first of an angry god.

Of course, that's not gonan happen. Bio will wuss out of making logical decisions with logical consequences...

[Wulfram]

Handing the people gooifier over to the crazy incompetent terrorist who constantly lies to you is "low risk"?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades should get most of the best outcomes because they approach their decisions logically. Paragons should often suffer for giving into emotion and weakness.

Right, b/c you never give into emotion.

Case in point (from another thread just 10 minutes ago):

Saphra Deden wrote...

Do you just mash your keyboard randomly? Amazing how it works though. I mean it almost seems like I'm
talking to a real person sometimes.

AAAAandd.. the difference between Sheppard making a very important decision logicly and Saphra stabing at someone in the forum is compeltely lost.....

Because - as we all know - if someone is acting emotionally now, that means he/she can never, ever, under any circumstances be serious and logical - right?<_<
Being serious when you have to be, and beeing loose otherwise - it's a foreign concept to some apparently...

[tetrisblock4x1]

Better idea is to just scrap the whole thing. Reputation systems are all pue **** and always very gamey, just do what other good RPGs do and have the players reputation and stuff be invisible. Having any consequences to player choice would be a welcome change in the series.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wulfram wrote...

Handing the people gooifier over to the crazy incompetent terrorist who constantly lies to you is "low risk"?

Your first point is heavily contested.

The second has no basis whatsoever. The Only time TIM witheld info is the Collector cruiser, and he had a good reason. How is that "constantly"?

[tetrisblock4x1]

Remember, we're debating logic in a game where an apparantly dead agent of Cerberus known as Shepard returns two years later from the dead and is responded to with slap on the wrist and a "move along citizen" by the very same citadel alien council who Cerberus are opposed to.

Yeah, **** logic, and I can quote other bits of Biowares poorly thought out writing. Why do the BSN forums care so much about logic and consistency in ME2? Why doesn't Bioware have that much attention to detail?

[Random citizen]

pure paragons and pure renegade should have very different outcomes and very different failures on their hands. Sometimes, not acting on a renegade interrupt should cost. (like for example if you are trying to negotiate with a crazed person, and you have already paragon persuaded him to release most of the hostages, which require maximum paragon points, but he still have a single hostage left and gets spooked by something and raises his gun....acting on the renegade interrupt puts a whole in his head and the danger is over, the following paragon interrupt allows Shepard to shoot him in the hand so he drops his weapon, which goes of and wounds Anderson.. doing nothing and the maniac starts gunning down people.) That being said, some renegade options are prety much sociopathic and just desplays a very problematic lack of understanding the bigger picture.

Modifié par Random citizen, 19 décembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[Lumikki]

Hehe, there is millions of players choosing different ways, so how can any choise be wrong?
Other ways you are basicly saying what ever I choose has to be right choice, so make my choices be the right ones.

That's the hole point of paragon and renegade, choices aren't wrong, they are just different paths and causing different kind of situations and emotions, based how player wanted to handle situation.

ANY person here asking that any path should be better than other, doesn't understand it.it's not about better or worst, it's choice of different kind of same path. The choices are there to serve players emotions.

Like killing some npc can give pleasure or cause sorrow, based players emotions and choosen path.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 décembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Andorfiend]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The second has no basis whatsoever. The Only time TIM witheld info is the Collector cruiser, and he had a good reason. How is that "constantly"?

During your first conversation he withheld his suspicions about the collectors.

During Horizon he withheld information about him baiting them.

I don't think there was a single converstion with TIM where he didn't withold information. Even for something as minor as Zaeed and Kasumi's dossiers he couldn't bring himself to tell Shepard that he has made side deals with them, to do their loyalty missions, even though both of them tell you it was a condition for their being hired. It's habitual with him, even when nothing is to be gained. OF course he is, at all points, also trying to mainipulate you. He is incapable of grasping that a fully informed ally is better than a partially informed tool.

Mind you, Shepard is an idiot for falling for it. Given that his real goal is building a coalition to stop the Reapers, for example, he was an idiot for merely trying to get the IFF from the dead Reaper. He should instead have brought the Council in to observe incontestable proof that Sovereign was not a Geth construction. Of course if TIM was as brilliant as his fanboys think, that might have occured to him too.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The second has no basis whatsoever. The Only time TIM witheld info is the Collector cruiser, and he had a good reason. How is that "constantly"?

Collectors, Liara, Horizon, collector ship.  The conversations where he doesn't lie or mislead you are rarer.

[Bleachrude]

How many times did paragon allow you the option to avoid a fight? There's the Saren fight of course...

I know in ME2, pretty much going renegade nets you an advantage in a fight - Shanking caska, blowing the head of the mech at archangel, blowing up the eclipse mercs during miranda's loyalty mission, similarly in Mordin's loyalty mission....

[AVPen]

Luc0s wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Renegades should get most of the best outcomes because they approach their decisions logically. Paragons should often suffer for giving into emotion and weakness.

*sigh*

Double sigh and grabs an aspirin.

[Admoniter]

Well ideally that is what I would like to see. Both decisions having positive, negative or a mix of the two when it comes to outcomes. It would be silly if paragons where 100% right when it came to the judgement calls they made, in fact it would be silly if either side was 100% right or wrong.

That said I'm not holding my breath, bioware seems pretty set in it's blue button/red button mindset and frankly I don't see them changing now. Which is a little disappointing tbh. I personally don't see the point of allowing decisions if the developer takes the all roads lead to rome option and honestly if that is what happens with the only difference between playthroughs being a couple lines of dialogue here and there and some emails I will consider the whole meaningful consequences over the course of the trilogy to be a crock of bull,a failure on biowares part and something completely beyond their grasp at this time.