5087 réponses à ce sujet

[delta_vee]

@drayfish

Yep. Also, I've had my monocle and cravat on this whole time.

@opsrbest

You're still around! Das ist gut. Also, I try to presume intelligence until proven otherwise. This thread has allowed me to keep that policy in place.

@frypan

I thought the interrupts during LotSB worked just fine, myself. That Kai Leng one, though, only determines if you break his sword before stabbing him. (Ugh, Kai Leng. He's ammunition for those predisposed to hating Bioware and heaping scorn on their fans.)

As for interrupts at the end, well, I'm somewhere between ambivalent and vehemently against the entire construction of the paragade system with its delineated morality and red/blue win-conversation buttons. The less of that in the end, the better.

@Kita

A) That renegade interrupt has you kill TIM before he shoots Anderson dead.

Looking forward to that draft.

Edit: Blast. Everyone, uh, hum Beethoven's Ninth!

Modifié par delta_vee, 05 juin 2012 - 01:14 .

[BigglesFlysAgain]

Well when the EC releases I imagine it will debunk several interpretations, and probably justify one or two of them, and obviously I would expect people who backed the "wrong" idea, to embrace the new evidence like good scientists and come to a new conclusion without any bitterness or... Lol what am I saying this is BSN. But seriously as several people have said all the theories are based on limited evidence and "speculation", and people who engaged in the said speculation probably should have realised the risk of becoming involved in a theory is that it could be proved wrong at a later date.

I think an interesting point will be was the "new" ending really biowares original intent, or something they focused on based on all the "feedback" post release. I imagine when analyzing a story you do have to ignore real world events for the most part and just focus on what is in front of you on the screen or the page.

Modifié par BigglesFlysAgain, 05 juin 2012 - 01:44 .

[SimonTheFrog]

I'm very curious as to what extend the EC will be able to tear down walls between the several factions of the BSN.
Some will remain undoubtly but others may be shattered. I have high hopes for IT and some strong ending preferences.

But then again, new walls will be built. Some will like the EC while others will not think it adressed the most urgent issues.

Apart from that, are the schisms really an issue and was there ever a time without them? I remember hot debates about Shepards sexuality, the Lazarus project, whether or not Cerberus is evil... There's always something to split the forums in factions.

I agree that the "speculations for everyone" approach (whether or not it succeeded in a way Walter has hoped) added a lot of walls in the community but i must say that this seems a minor issue for the community and the franchise all things considered.

I fear that the way BioWare has handled the backlash and the long silence afterwards caused a much bigger issue: people just abandoned the franchise.

ME is just not a good "place" to be anymore. Many debates are too heated, cynical and desparate. It has become a poisoned atmoshere. Some endure it, but many just gave up.

I feel that this is both the result of the frustration that many players felt after completing the ending, no matter which ending they chose and then following how BioWare responded to the bad feedback.

I have little hope that the EC can cure the poison for the "vocal minority" that is still here on a daily basis. But i have hope that, if it's showing some heart-warming farewell scenes, it will bring back some lost players with a fresh set of minds and more optimism in their hearts

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 05 juin 2012 - 02:26 .

[edisnooM]

@frypan

I played as pretty much complete Paragon so I never had to do it, but apparently if you don't have a high enough score in the final conversation you actually have to use a Renegade interrupt to prevent TIM from not only shooting Anderson, but then Shepard as well. Some people found this annoying (justifiably I think) since it forces you to go Renegade to survive and complete the game.

@delta_vee

I have never read any of the Mass Effect books, but from what I understand Kai Leng used to be a much better character. However apparently starting with Mass Effect: Deception and then continuing in ME3 his character took a nose dive. To me it seems kind of like Faramir in LOTR. In the books he was an awesome character, but then in The Two Towers movie Jackson performed a bit of a character assassination on him. He still ended up being cool later on, but that part always annoyed me.

@SimonTheFrog

I consider myself something of a pessimistic optimist. I hope for the best while at the same time expecting the worse. I'm willing to give BioWare the benefit of the doubt that they can pull "something" off that will make the ending passable, but I really have no idea how.

Still, hope springs eternal. :-)

[KitaSaturnyne]

@delta_vee

Haw haw! Beethoven's ninth is underrated in this age. God help us if someone covers it, though.

It's disappointing that there's no paragon interrupt to balance out the final talk with the Illusive Man. Although now that I think about it, the game as a whole lacked in the area of interrupts.

Even after hearing about Kai Leng's character as he was in the novels, in ME3, he never really resonated with me on any level. He was just the Illusive Man's errand boy.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 05 juin 2012 - 11:34 .

[D24O]

GoldBTM25 wrote...

Had seen this post before and was curious about it. Glad I got around to read it. Laughed at the Matrix/Godfather dig.

He nails precisely every problem I had with the ending. For me, it wasn't as much about the lack of choice, which unquestionably is an big problem, as it was the jarring disconnect with the rest of the series.

Yeah. The very sudden switch to a minimalistic style in the last 20 minutes of the series, at least for me, was very jarring in a series where there was a lot of detail and explination. It didn't feel like the same game after taking the elevator to the Catalyst sequence.

[edisnooM]

@KitaSaturnyne

I agree about Kai Leng. Maybe if I had read the books first it would be different, but I really felt like they were trying to make him into some sort of Nega-Shepard, especially after I found out he was N7. Also his email about beating me when he hadn't hit me once and then got a gunship to drop a building on me.

I don't think I could take him seriously now even if I wanted to, it's sort of like if you saw the prequel Star Wars movies first could you take Vader seriously?

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

In one word: NNNNOOOOOOOOO!

[Seijin8]

I thought there were a reasonable amount of interrupts in the game. The mechanic of the interrupt is a very sensitive one. Like subtitles in a foreign film, it draws your eyes away from the movie itself. To me, the best place for the interrupt was always where an action had to stop a dialogue, or where something in the dialogue called for an immediate break from Robert's Rules of Order.

It is easily a mechanic that can be overused, so I don't mind it being absent from many scenes. Overall, I thought ME3 had the right amount of them for the dialogue given.

Notable ones I remember that haven't been mentioned:
- Dalatrass during the summit with the Primarch and Wrex.
- Punching Admiral Han'Gerrel
- I seem to recall at least one during the Allers interviews (might be imagining that one though)

There did seem to be fewer paragon interrupts throughout the game, though. I chalked that up to the general feel of ME3 - its desperation and hard calculus, and the seeming psychological stresses of Shepard (unless paragon interrupts triggered a good crying session, then they didn't fit that theme).

Modifié par Seijin8, 06 juin 2012 - 01:44 .

[edisnooM]

One thing that kind of irked me about the interrupts is that preference sometimes seemed given to the Renegade ones. The only Paragon ones I can recall off the top of my head are:

Not punching Khalisah al-Jilani.
Talking with Aethyta
Interupting Admiral Xen about Legion (Really liked that one)
Talking with Liara after Thessia
Talking with Vendetta on Cronos station

While these were fine, aside from the Xen interrupt I felt they kind of paled compared to the ones Renegades got: shooting Udina, punching Han'Gerrel, breaking Kai Leng's sword (now that's Renegade :-) ). Though I can see what you mean about maybe not fitting the theme Seijin8.

Some I thought could maybe have gone either way, stopping Udina from shooting the Asari councillor seems like it could be a Paragon action as much as a Renegade one, maybe we could have just nicked him or something. And stopping TIM from shooting Shepard or Anderson seems like something a Paragon might be OK with. It kind of seems like BioWare considers Paragons to be pacifists or something.

Edit:

@KitaSaturnyne

And now Lucas has brought that line into the original trilogy as well. <_<

Modifié par edisnooM, 06 juin 2012 - 02:28 .

[Jorji Costava]

The interrupts seemed to be constructed with the expectation that most players would choose every interrupt regardless of whether or not they had been mostly paragon or renegade up to that point. A lot of the paragon interrupts I remember involve just shaking dudes' hands. Javik on Earth and Wrex on Tuchanka are the ones that came to mind. Not taking these interrupts led to some fairly awkward moments. There's also the aforementioned example of getting shot by TIM if you don't take any of the renegade interrupts, so I think the working assumption is that players will click the mouse or push their controller button every time they see a flashy indicator.

Perhaps this is a function of the way the interrupt mechanic is designed. The general rule seems to be that taking the interrupt generally leads to a better outcome than not doing so. The only example I can think of where this is not the case is the paragon interrupt to try to prevent Tali from killing herself on Rannoch; it's actually unsuccessful. Still, I can't think of a case where interrupts lead to a decidedly worse outcome. And I can see why the developers would set things up this way. When that indicator flashes, you have very little information about what the interrupt will do, so it would seem a bit unfair to punish players who have the alertness to push the button when the opportunity arises. Perhaps it would be better if we had some way of getting information about what the interrupt will do before we take it. This seems to be more true to the spirit of role-playing. After all, in real life, we deliberate and choose our actions; we don't try to guess what they will be. On the other hand, there is a trade-off, since a lot of the satisfaction from the interrupts comes from the element of surprise. So this is really just a long-winded way of saying I don't really know what the best solution is.

Modifié par osbornep, 06 juin 2012 - 02:33 .

[delta_vee]

A couple more paragon ones you missed, edisnooM:

- Keeping Samara from shooting herself
- Stopping Javik from making a dismal, disheartening speech on the Citadel

There's also the paragon interrupt to try and save Tali from jumping off the cliff (if the quarians die), but it doesn't pan out.

[Seijin8]

Well, it makes sense that instant violence = renegade. I can't see a paragon interrupt advocating violence.

But I guess this goes more into the idea of "total paragon" and "total renegade" playthroughs. To me, those are completely artificial, and reflect the game mechanics far more than any reasonable reflection of a human being. We have to recall that Shepard is a warrior - whatever version of Shepard it is - this person solves problems by burying their foes. There has never been an option to simply subdue the bad guys and leave them hanging around, ala Batman. Shepard is a killer. That is canon.

Renegade = shoot now, ask questions later (if at all). Paragon = focus more on the objective outcome than immediate tactical necessity or impulse.

Paragon playthroughs *should* suffer when their hesitation leads to death, just as renegade playthroughs *should* suffer when allies are uncommitted and friends are there merely to get the job done and because they fear Shepard more than the enemy.

I typically play "mostly paragon", but it is rare when a tense situation arises and I don't take the shot.

EDIT:  And as an aside, this mechanic and the mental realities behind it led to the one time Shepard ever lied to a squadmate.  When Kaiden asked if I would have shot him on the Citadel, my Shep answered "I could never do that" while knowing full well that he could and absolutely would do so.  Emergent emotional narrative, very cool stuff.

EDIT2:  I should also add that me and my Shep actually liked Kaiden, and this comment wasn't to say that Kaiden needed a bullet.

Modifié par Seijin8, 06 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[edisnooM]

@delta_vee

Oh right forgot about those. Both good ones, and the Javik one made me laugh.

"Uh, I don't think that's gonna work."

@osbornep

I'm not sure but I thought that clicking every interrupt, and the accumulated Paragon/Renegade points, in some cases locked players out of certain conversation options. I could be completely wrong though.

But I can see what you mean about clicking every interrupt, and if doesn't lock you out of options it would sort of make sense, but some are set up as mutually exclusive, for instance if you don't save Samara and let her die you then have the option to shoot her daughter (this coincidentally made me realize I could never play Renegade). And with Khalisah al-Jilani you only get the Paragon interrupt if you don't use the Renegade one first.

@Seijin8

Good points and I can see what you mean.

For myself I played as nearly completely Paragon, with only a couple of Renegade interupts, I think Aethyta and the Marines in Purgatory. But I still find it odd in situations like with TIM where the only way to survive is to go Renegade. Apparently Paragons don't have a survival instinct. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 06 juin 2012 - 03:16 .

[Jorji Costava]

@edisnooM

Those are really good examples; I forgot about those. Still, it does seem that the game sometimes trusts a player to take an interrupt that's contrary to her alignment; it's hard for me to explain the TIM setup otherwise. I thought that the game was assuming that even paragon players will defend themselves against TIM by taking the renegade interrupt, because hey, it's flashing and TIM's not a very nice guy. I don't think the intention is to suppose that paragon players won't defend themselves, although it can seem that way if you're doing a pure paragon playthrough.

Also, let me just reiterate the sentiment that this thread is awesome. Because of this, I'm going to offer a handshake to everyone here, and there are free paragon points to anyone who takes up the offer.

[frypan]

@Kita

Thanks for clarifying the end game with regard to TIM. I really wanted that option to talk him down and score an ideological victory.

@edisnooM

I agree that choosing a renegade interrupt at the end felt thematically odd. Maybe they struggled, as Seijin8 noted, to find paragon interupts that kept with their design for the game. Again, a problem with going all grimdark at the end of the trilogy. Personally I dont see why they couldnt do it - paragon is about persuasion, Shepherds charismatic personality and talking folks down, perfect at the end. Maybe Bioware's direct, approach meant that they lost touch with the non-violent, in favour of interupts more in line with quicktime action events. Maybe, I dont know.

@DeltaVee.

I'm interested to see that you liked the paragon interupts in LOTSB, and wouldnt mind knowing why. I found they dropped immersion, something osbornep notes about such a device in general. Coming out of the fight with the rogue Asari spectre, to be hit with three paragon interupts in a row just to continue the Liara romance felt a bit forced. Considering the implications, I was focussed on them and missed the chance to enjoy the confrontation between the two. However, Im a bit slow on the uptake which is why they break immersion so much.

Its also interesting to note your distaste for the paragade system. It certainly has limitations, but I struggle to think of a better system. While its shallow from a moral perspective, it beats the lack of any such system in games like Skyrim, or the absent morality of MMOs, where renegade style choices affect the enjoyment of real players. The Witcher was the only other kind of consequence based game I could think about, and I actually struggled with its lack of morality in the two main choices. I just recently found myself in a quest in Skyrim where I could drop the quest or was forced to do something evil for a Daedric prince. there was no option to go good once the quest appeared in the journal. I need my blue glowing signal up front sometimes!

That said, I do like the option to go either good or bad in a certain situation, just like Seijin8. However I also like being constrained by the knowledge that my ultimate karmic place in the universe is being defined by such actions. As a power gamer, I like the chance to view it as a gameplay option that must be manipulated and chanelled for an optimum result.

I suspect that in order to create a moral universe, games will continue on such a path as it is easier to administer than pure choice based administration of the game. Its also way better than the lack of morality in online play, which is why I'm bothered by such integration into a SP experience. The real world often lacks the epic battles of good vs evil that I so much enjoy in games, and while it can be fun sometimes (Dark Souls - drink!) much of gaming is escapsim for me - and that includes the artificiality of a clearly defined alignment graph type system.

Also, thanks to all for listing those interrupt events, I hadnt realised how many there actually were.

EDIT: Thanks for the paragon points osbornep.edisnooM and I scored some renegade points earlier for mentioning a taboo topic, and Drayfish needs a few after dissing Eurovision.

Modifié par frypan, 06 juin 2012 - 03:59 .

[delta_vee]

@edisnooM

I don't think the TIM interrupt is "going renegade" (I think that's too narrow of view of the system) since the renegade interrupt is the same as the fire button. I don't see a paragon interrupt making sense - there's nothing to do but shoot him at that point.

@osbornep

Handshakes all around. And a round of beer/whiskey/vodka/elderflower cider.

@Seijin8

Right with you on the (subjective) artificiality of pure paragon/pure renegade.

[edisnooM]

@osbornep

I'll take that handshake, I can always use more Paragon points. :-)

And I agree they probably weren't trying to make it seem like Paragons will just lay down and die, also the issue seems to present itself with if you didn't have enough points in either Renegade or Paragon to make the conversation checks. Which could imply that either the player hadn't played pure Paragon, or wasn't complete enough in unlocking Paragon points. So perhaps in that situation the player would be more likely to find a Renegade interrupt acceptable.

Edit:

@frypan

I think that Weekes mentioned something about how afterwards he thought they had perhaps put those interupts too quickly and too close together, so it might be a design flaw. I liked being able to call Liara on the terminal hacking bit though. :-)

@delta_vee

That's a good point about the fire button.

Modifié par edisnooM, 06 juin 2012 - 04:11 .

[Hawk227]

I have mixed feelings about the paragade system. Originally I disliked the way you had to be artificially pure renegade/paragon to solve disputes late in the game, and liked the change made to ME3. For those that don't know, you access to charm/intimidate is tied to your reputation, not your relative paragon/renegade score. You can be 50/50 and still unite the Quarians/Geth if your reputation is high enough. I also see pure morality as artificial. If I hadn't been inclined to keep Tali from being exiled and broker peace between Miranda and Jack, I would have more likely been 75/25 paragon instead of closer to 90/10 in ME2.

But then someone (somewhere) pointed out that it makes sense for things to be locked to impure moralities (?). If you've demonstrated you're a stone cold renegade, the intimidate would be interpreted as more sincere. Whereas if you were a pure paragon and tried the intimidate, it would seem fake. So, on some level, it makes sense to have those blocked if they are out of character.

Also, there were quite a few interrupts, but most of the paragon interrupts were shaking hands or comforting people so they were less memorable then punching Gerrel or breaking Leng's sword.

Modifié par Hawk227, 06 juin 2012 - 04:27 .

[drayfish]

@ osbornep:

I will gladly partake of some handshakes, and a paragon point or two. Y'all are the nicest folk I've ever - Oh, wait. What's this? A paragon interupt? Well let me just pull that trigger and - What?! I gave you medigel? But I needed that medigel! Damnit. Reload.

and @ frypan:

I only mock Eurovision because I love it so. ...Except for Humperdink. That I could have lived without.

[George-Kinsill]

frypan wrote...



@DeltaVee.

Its also interesting to note your distaste for the paragade system. It certainly has limitations, but I struggle to think of a better system. While its shallow from a moral perspective, it beats the lack of any such system in games like Skyrim, or the absent morality of MMOs, where renegade style choices affect the enjoyment of real players. The Witcher was the only other kind of consequence based game I could think about, and I actually struggled with its lack of morality in the two main choices. I just recently found myself in a quest in Skyrim where I could drop the quest or was forced to do something evil for a Daedric prince. there was no option to go good once the quest appeared in the journal. I need my blue glowing signal up front sometimes!

That said, I do like the option to go either good or bad in a certain situation, just like Seijin8. However I also like being constrained by the knowledge that my ultimate karmic place in the universe is being defined by such actions. As a power gamer, I like the chance to view it as a gameplay option that must be manipulated and chanelled for an optimum result.

I suspect that in order to create a moral universe, games will continue on such a path as it is easier to administer than pure choice based administration of the game. Its also way better than the lack of morality in online play, which is why I'm bothered by such integration into a SP experience. The real world often lacks the epic battles of good vs evil that I so much enjoy in games, and while it can be fun sometimes (Dark Souls - drink!) much of gaming is escapsim for me - and that includes the artificiality of a clearly defined alignment graph type system.

Also, thanks to all for listing those interrupt events, I hadnt realised how many there actually were.

EDIT: Thanks for the paragon points osbornep.edisnooM and I scored some renegade points earlier for mentioning a taboo topic, and Drayfish needs a few after dissing Eurovision.

While I like the Witcher handling of consequences of choices, it is obviously not going to work that well in games that read previous saves from other games, like Mass Effect. Therefore, I would recommend that developers embrace teh quad morality system over the bi-morality system. There is the typical good versus evil bar combined with lawful versus chaotic scale.

This is used in table top RPGs and could create a large variety of role playing techniques. This would allow people to disregard the law at times like a renegade, but to serve good, or hide behind the law to escape justice as a lwful evil character. In any case, I think it may solve the messed up morality system we currently have. A chaotic good character could combfortable shoot TIM.

[George-Kinsill]

@osbornep

I refuse to give you a hand shake...

Instead, I will give you a paragon bro hug!

[edisnooM]

@George-Kinsill

Another "quad-morality" system I've seen was in Fable 2 where they had good and evil, but also purity and corruption. This mainly affected your characters appearance and NPC reactions as opposed to quest/story outcomes, but it did provide some cool ways to customize your character.

And now I've got a hankering to play Fable 2 again.

[delta_vee]

@frypan

I'm interested to see that you liked the paragon interupts in LOTSB, and wouldnt mind knowing why. I found they dropped immersion, something osbornep notes about such a device in general. Coming out of the fight with the rogue Asari spectre, to be hit with three paragon interupts in a row just to continue the Liara romance felt a bit forced. Considering the implications, I was focussed on them and missed the chance to enjoy the confrontation between the two. However, Im a bit slow on the uptake which is why they break immersion so much.

The way I remember the scene (both playthroughs, neither having romanced Liara) it was a matter of getting her to slow down for a moment, to stop rushing from one confrontation to the next, to get some context on what and where and who and most importantly why. She was so grim and determined, and so eager to move on to the next objective, I appreciated the opportunity to ask her, essentially, "what the hell?"

Its also interesting to note your distaste for the paragade system. It certainly has limitations, but I struggle to think of a better system. While its shallow from a moral perspective, it beats the lack of any such system in games like Skyrim, or the absent morality of MMOs, where renegade style choices affect the enjoyment of real players. The Witcher was the only other kind of consequence based game I could think about, and I actually struggled with its lack of morality in the two main choices. I just recently found myself in a quest in Skyrim where I could drop the quest or was forced to do something evil for a Daedric prince. there was no option to go good once the quest appeared in the journal. I need my blue glowing signal up front sometimes!

I don't like morality systems, period. I like decisions with no clear right answer, or moral decisions where doing good has a cost. In Bioshock, for example, the supposedly hard choice of whether or not to (quite essentially) kill little girls to better your own chance at survival was made trivial by the rewards bestowed upon you for, well, not killing little girls. It undermined the choice itself.

Or take the conversation system in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Much of the dialogue wasn't good or evil, but different perspectives on the central questions of the game. Other conversations were a form of combat, with dialogue order semi-randomized and the goal to figure out what the other person wants (or instead needs, in some cases) to hear.

The Heretic decision in ME2 was well-constructed, I think, precisely because of its abandonment of the usual paragade scale. As was the Genophage decision sequence in ME3, since there were so many variables and so much of it depended on not only your perspective, but the situational perspective of the other involved characters. Rannoch, on the other hand, had a discrete "good" option, clearly better than the others, which leads me to...

That said, I do like the option to go either good or bad in a certain situation, just like Seijin8. However I also like being constrained by the knowledge that my ultimate karmic place in the universe is being defined by such actions. As a power gamer, I like the chance to view it as a gameplay option that must be manipulated and chanelled for an optimum result.

The bolded part is the one I object to - not as a personal thing, mind you, but as an issue of game design. When a particular morality (any particular morality, frankly, good, bad, indifferent, or Mal Reynolds) becomes entrenched in and rewarded by the game, it becomes more difficult for players to use a more natural response scheme to decisions (as Hawk227 mentions with the difference between his intended moral balance and his mechanic-driven one, and the confines of which edisnooM notes in the final TIM scene). What are supposed to be moral choices devolve into mechanical ones. If I'm constructing a character, I don't want to craft the morality meter in the same fashion that I select my skills. That gives a perverse incentive to doing good, and undermines the purpose of difficult decisions in my eyes.

I suspect that in order to create a moral universe, games will continue on such a path as it is easier to administer than pure choice based administration of the game. Its also way better than the lack of morality in online play, which is why I'm bothered by such integration into a SP experience. The real world often lacks the epic battles of good vs evil that I so much enjoy in games, and while it can be fun sometimes (Dark Souls - drink!) much of gaming is escapsim for me - and that includes the artificiality of a clearly defined alignment graph type system.

Online play is a whole different beast. The emergent beauty of EVE or DayZ is predicated on allowing the full range of abilities for players to be absolute ****s to each other.

EDIT: Thanks for the paragon points osbornep.edisnooM and I scored some renegade points earlier for mentioning a taboo topic, and Drayfish needs a few after dissing Eurovision.

Ugh. Eurovision. If I hadn't been asleep while y'all were talking about it, I would've roasted its head on a spit.

[Seijin8]

@George-Kinsill: I agree that the polarizing options of the paragade system are too limited, though I generally disagree with the law/chaos approach to alignment in real-world endeavors. L/C works for D&D and similar styles because the game world is designed with those conceptual divides in place.

I think even better would be a system where the character creation asks for your character's point of view on different topics, and then the gameplay allows for the character to change their mind, or take a path that is apparantly divergent from their initial stance. Of course, this would require more time/resources for a functionally shorter game experience, with lots of replay value.

With the Witcher, CD Projekt Red is also limited as they are writing a character that is already well-established from Andrej Sapkowski's (sp?) writings. The ability to influence the politics is about all that is left, since the backstory is quite well-developed.