If someone with Twitter could throw out "full interactivity with conversations, negligible auto-dialogue" while Mac's in the listening mood, that'd be great.
Err...so what does that mean, exactly?
Precise player controlled body language? Controlling the exact wording of dialogue? Neither of those things are going to happen.
Thanks for all your #MassEffect thoughts. Keep discussing & sending, love hearing it. And don't forget to enjoy the 1st late night of 2015!
Spring-Forward Poll: What new feature, system or gameplay would you add to the next #MassEffect ?
Elcor MacBeth.
Err...so what does that mean, exactly?
Precise player controlled body language? Controlling the exact wording of dialogue? Neither of those things are going to happen.
Which, despite the screenshot, very obviously didn't occur at all in Inquisition, of course?
Because if it did, I would have had the Inquisitor give some decent speeches instead of generally being a dullard.
Pretty much every game that has ever feature a morality system does the same thing.
And for very, very good reason.
Paragon is not idealism and renegade is not pragmatism.
“@User: @macwalterslives Triple A voice actors to voice the characters, just like in the ME trilogy. ” @CabLivingstone Indeed!
Well, what I meant more is that we should punished sometimes for being Mr. Save everyone and putting lives ahead of the mission. Mr. Goody two shoes should get burned too, much more than he did in the trilogy.
On the other hand, I feel like the Renegades should be rewarded for their focus on the objective.
For example, in ME1 on Virmire, if there was a special charm (paragon ) option to save both Ash and Kaidan, then choosing that should result in both of them getting killed since you weren't pragmatic and you spread yourself too thin. We rarely saw this sort of thing backfiring for Paragons, and I hope this balances out a bit.
Basically, I don't want to be picking the Paragon button all the time and expecting an ideal solution with minimal consequences. That's kind of hard to summarize in an 140 character tweet though
Except that isn't pragmatic at all, is it? Because I'm guessing the other half of the team as well as however many other dozen crewmen are on the Normandy sit and twiddle their thumbs while this happens? Making the idea of 'spreading yourself too thin' fall very flat.
Renegades and evil characters in fiction get a 'free pass' on their choices and actions far, far, far more than good characters do. Where are the consequences for killing innocent people? The consequences for thinking the Citadel races are going to bow down to a human council? The consequences for taking action that would clearly infuriate companions? They pretty much never show up. In pretty much every game, the protagonist gets a free pass on whatever atrocities he can commit by sheer force of being Just That Awesome And Badass.
If you want actual 'pragmatism,' it's going to bring the hammer down on evil characters much, much harder than good characters.
Which, despite the screenshot, very obviously didn't occur at all in Inquisition, of course?
Because if it did, I would have had the Inquisitor give some decent speeches instead of generally being a dullard.
It occurred throughout quite a bit of Inquisition, actually.
But no, you can't type out your desired response (speeches?) for the game to process. Doesn't mean you don't have a say, though.
(And my pair of Inquisitors definitely weren't "dullards").
The Inquisitor certainly seemed to be a dullard to me. I can hardly remember a single spoken line by him found I compelling. Certainly no good speeches. Whereas I can remember plenty of lines I very much liked and were very strongly and well written from Shepard. As I said, if I really did have control, you would think I would chosen more interesting dialogue.
If full interaction means watering down the writing to feebleness, it's something to be thoroughly avoided.
Well, what I meant more is that we should punished sometimes for being Mr. Save everyone and putting lives ahead of the mission. Mr. Goody two shoes should get burned too, much more than he did in the trilogy.
On the other hand, I feel like the Renegades should be rewarded for their focus on the objective.
For example, in ME1 on Virmire, if there was a special charm (paragon ) option to save both Ash and Kaidan, then choosing that should result in both of them getting killed since you weren't pragmatic and you spread yourself too thin. We rarely saw this sort of thing backfiring for Paragons, and I hope this balances out a bit.
Basically, I don't want to be picking the Paragon button all the time and expecting an ideal solution with minimal consequences. That's kind of hard to summarize in an 140 character tweet though
Instead of adding "trap" Paragon options why not just scrap the morality system altogether and at least attempt to make scenarios a little more nuanced?
It would be better to aim for results offering different content instead of trying to balance out a morality scale so each side gets an equal amount of "backfiring."
Already fired away my request: '' No more ''Paragon to win''. ME trilogy favored them a lot. Pragmatism should win over idealism and altruism sometimes.''
Let's see if he answers
OOOOO that's a good one!
” NextGen = better hair. Or if it doesn't... It really should. No?
Given the ending he wrote , I think Mr. Walters has a poor enough understanding of 'idealism' and 'pragmatism' as is. Perhaps we should avoid egging that on with the very wrong implication that good actions are stupid and evil actions are smart.
Removing the morality system isn't going to remove the concept of the story 'telling' the player which choices are right and wrong. That's going to stay completely intact, morality system or no.
If nothing else, the morality system has value as part of the identity of the Mass Effect universe. Paragon and Renegade. Like the Light and Dark side of the Force.
Removing the morality system isn't going to remove the concept of the story 'telling' the player which choices are right and wrong. That's going to stay completely intact, morality system or no.
If nothing else, the morality system has value as part of the identity of the Mass Effect universe. Paragon and Renegade. Like the Light and Dark side of the Force.
If the series had managed to maitain a consistent idea of what paragon and renegade really even are, I might agree. They haven't.
The binary morality track is a relic of Bioware's work with the Star Wars franchise, where it made sense. Dragon Age has proven that it isn't necessary. They don't need to hold onto it, especially since the Mass Effect system is the worst and most inconsistent of those systems.
The difference between Mass Effect and Star Wars morality systems is that the sides of the Force are "real". They are acknowledged in setting as part of universe. By contrast, paragon and renegade are abstractions with little to no grounding in the universe. It serves no purpose except to guide the player along a binary choice path. Yes, the writers may continue to "tell" the player right and wrong but at least the possibility would exist to create more varied options without them.
If the series had managed to maitain a consistent idea of what paragon and renegade really even are, I might agree. They haven't.
The binary morality track is a relic of the Bioware's work with the Star Wars franchise, where it made sense. Dragon Age has proven that it isn't necessary. They don't need to hold onto it, especially since the Mass Effect system is the worst and most inconsistent of those systems.
The difference between Mass Effect and Star Wars morality systems is that the sides of the Force are "real". They are acknowledged in setting as part of universe. By contrast, paragon and renegade are abstractions with little to no grounding in the universe. It serves no purpose except to guide the player along a binary choice path. Yes, the writers may continue to "tell" the player right and wrong but at least the possibility would exist to create more varied options without them.
There are certainly a few choices that weren't done very well, but overall, they did a very solid job. They did a very solid job of keeping Paragon good. And smart, too.
Renegade isn't always consistent, but evil never is in games. Because the motivations behind it are never consistent. Good is consistent. Good characters always want to help others, save the world, relieve suffering, push people to their best.
Evil actions are a coin toss.
Are they (supposed) pragmatic evil? Where the protagonist commits evil for the (supposed) 'greater good'?
Are the selfish evil? Where the protagonist commits evil to benefit himself at the cost of others?
Are they sadistic evil? Where the protagonist commits evil for the purpose of causing pain to people who don't deserve it?
Or are they psychotic evil? Where the protagonist commits evil for no real tangible motivation at all?
Pretty much every game that allows evil actions and choices is inconsistent on the motivation behind them. Which is one of the factors behind good playthroughs pretty much always leading to the superior story than evil playthroughs.
Except that isn't pragmatic at all, is it? Because I'm guessing the other half of the team as well as however many other dozen crewmen are on the Normandy sit and twiddle their thumbs while this happens? Making the idea of 'spreading yourself too thin' fall very flat.
Renegades and evil characters in fiction get a 'free pass' on their choices and actions far, far, far more than good characters do. Where are the consequences for killing innocent people? The consequences for thinking the Citadel races are going to bow down to a human council? The consequences for taking action that would clearly infuriate companions? They pretty much never show up. In pretty much every game, the protagonist gets a free pass on whatever atrocities he can commit by sheer force of being Just That Awesome And Badass.
If you want actual 'pragmatism,' it's going to bring the hammer down on evil characters much, much harder than good characters.
We know that the crew sitting on the Normandy is more of a content and gameplay limitation rather than a plot one, and it's one that applies to the game as a whole rather than my specific example.
There obviously has to be some suspension of disbelief for evil Renegades to work in games like Mass Effect, but it is exactly this problem I hope they correct. There shouldn't be a need for evil characters.
Renegades shouldn't just be jerks who do evil stuff for the sake of doing it. They should be just as motivated as Paragons, but with different methods. More cruel and inhumane methods might be necessary, but the main grip I have is that in the trilogy, it's rare that the Renegade choice yields a more positive outcome than the Paragon choice. For the entire trilogy, you could just pick Paragon all the way, being Mr. Perfect Space Jesus and get 99% of all the decisions right.
There should be times when you have to make a sacrifice to get a better outcome, the kind a Renegade would make in a heartbeat, but would leave a Paragon skeptical. A good example might be Zaeed's loyalty mission. If you decide to go straight for Vido and choose the Renegade option, you are automatically guaranteed his loyalty. If you decide to save the civilians and choose Paragon, then you need to pass a Paragon check in order to secure it, which seems reasonable enough.
But this highlights the problem with the system. If you are Paragon all the time, then this check is a formality. You get the best of both worlds, and taking the Renegade choice is redundant. But it shouldn't be. There should be times when taking the Renegade choice is the best option. If Shepard decides that Zaeed's loyalty will help save a lot more lives down the road, then that is pragmatism. Even though he loses innocent live in the short term, he isn't some evil jerk who has no heart. He has reasons, and there should be times when this option is more favorable than the Paragon choice.
That's what I meant by emphasizing by pragmatism over altruism. I don't want them to use Paragon = Space Jesus and Renegade = Space Jerk like they did in the trilogy. Give us moral ambiguity. Give us reasons to choose Renegade over Paragon. That's all I want.
Instead of adding "trap" Paragon options why not just scrap the morality system altogether and at least attempt to make scenarios a little more nuanced?
It would be better to aim for results offering different content instead of trying to balance out a morality scale so each side gets an equal amount of "backfiring."
This would obviously be an ideal solution. No need to tie it to a morality meter. Just make the choices with the best outcome vary through the game. If you stick to your ideals all the time, it should backfire. That's the point I was trying to make, and I agree that it isn't necessary to have Paragon or Renegade morality meters to accomplish this.
OOOOO that's a good one!
Yeah, it looks like he took a break. He didn't answer my tweet, but he did favorite it, so at least the message got through
“@User A larger variety of/better fitting hair styles
Bioware, I love ya, but your hair sucks. Don't feel bad, hair is really hard to get down.
That being said, I want a fuller beard for my character. I always wanted one in Mass Effect 1-3, screw alliance hair protocols.
Renegades shouldn't just be jerks who do evil stuff for the sake of doing it. They should be just as motivated as Paragons, but with different methods. More cruel and inhumane methods might be necessary, but the main grip I have is that in the trilogy, it's rare that the Renegade choice yields a more positive outcome than the Paragon choice. For the entire trilogy, you could just pick Paragon all the way, being Mr. Perfect Space Jesus and get 99% of all the decisions right.
There should be times when you have to make a sacrifice to get a better outcome, the kind a Renegade would make in a heartbeat, but would leave a Paragon skeptical. A good example might be Zaeed's loyalty mission. If you decide to go straight for Vido and choose the Renegade option, you are automatically guaranteed his loyalty. If you decide to save the civilians and choose Paragon, then you need to pass a Paragon check in order to secure it, which seems reasonable enough.
But this highlights the problem with the system. If you are Paragon all the time, then this check is a formality. You get the best of both worlds, and taking the Renegade choice is redundant. But it shouldn't be. There should be times when taking the Renegade choice is the best option. If Shepard decides that Zaeed's loyalty will help save a lot more lives down the road, then that is pragmatism. Even though he loses innocent live in the short term, he isn't some evil jerk who has no heart. He has reasons, and there should be times when this option is more favorable than the Paragon choice.
That's what I meant by emphasizing by pragmatism over altruism. I don't want them to use Paragon = Space Jesus and Renegade = Space Jerk like they did in the trilogy. Give us moral ambiguity. Give us reasons to choose Renegade over Paragon. That's all I want.
There are some other issues here, but first, the full Renegade playthrough leads to pretty much just as 'good' of an outcome. Or perhaps just as 'effective' of an outcome is a better choice of words. You kill a bunch of unimportant people who get in your way, but you can get just as many allies and assets in ME 3, yes? And with the exception of Wrex, the squadmates are all just as loyal to Shepard? Sure, people suffer, but Shepard doesn't really care about them anyway so it doesn't matter.
So would you be okay with Renegade choices suffering much harsher consequences? Say, maybe you betray the krogan and the asari or some other species feel you can't be trusted to keep your word, and back out of an alliance. And the human fleets get curb stomped in a battle because of it? Consequences beyond someone suffering that the protagonist might well not have cared about at all to begin with.
Maybe we need to move morality stuff to a new thread? It's an interesting discussion but is taking place in the twitter thread so I don't really want to jump into it here.
“@User: I absolutely adore side activities with their own smaller but ongoing stories. Nothing builds a world like those.” Agreed.
I agree with this to an extent. Games like Baldurs gate 2 and Vampire the Masquerade : Bloodlines got this spot on and really made the games world have a real depth. But plenty of games screw this up as well.
Side stories should not overwhelm the main story, nothing is worse than forgetting what your actual purpose is since you haven't touched it in 10 hours of gameplay.
The main story needs also to be non-urgent in areas that have side quests. If you are genuinely immersed in the game you should be tackling the most important mission next, not running off digging for minerals.
And finally side missions should be interesting enough to be worth having. I hate side missions that simply feel like repetitive work like simple fetch quests. There has to be some gameplay hook or interesting story to it to make it worth putting in the game.
It's great to see Mac (and any other dev) talking about next Mass Effect again. Have a feeling we will get some genuine info soon
There are some other issues here, but first, the full Renegade playthrough leads to pretty much just as 'good' of an outcome. Or perhaps just as 'effective' of an outcome is a better choice of words. You kill a bunch of unimportant people who get in your way, but you can get just as many allies and assets in ME 3, yes? And with the exception of Wrex, the squadmates are all just as loyal to Shepard? Sure, people suffer, but Shepard doesn't really care about them anyway so it doesn't matter.
So would you be okay with Renegade choices suffering much harsher consequences? Say, maybe you betray the krogan and the asari or some other species feel you can't be trusted to keep your word, and back out of an alliance. And the human fleets get curb stomped in a battle because of it? Consequences beyond someone suffering that the protagonist might well not have cared about at all to begin with.
After double checking, it seems that the difference in EMS for Renegade or Paragon playthroughs is minor. So you're right on that one 
Now, what you are saying is basically what I am looking for, but not just for Renegades. I want Renegades to suffer and succeed in equal amounts because of their pragmatism, but I also want Paragons to suffer and succeed in equal amounts because of their altruism/idealism. I want a perfect playthrough to require the player to be considerate of all options and not just stick to a single ideal like Paragon or Renegade.
For example, take your scenario above. You showed how being pragmatic can backfire, and that is fair to expect. However, what if the protagonist decides to include Synthetics/Batarians as part of his alliance, saying that we can trust them because they helped us earlier in the story, they've changed, etc. And once you get in the battle, they turn on you/get hacked, etc. and lose a lot of forces.
In that case, altruism and idealism backfire horribly. Being a Paragon backfires. That's what I am looking for.
Maybe we need to move morality stuff to a new thread? It's an interesting discussion but is taking place in the twitter thread so I don't really want to jump into it here.
Fair enough. Guess we just got caught up in the moment with the Twitter questions being asked 
“@User: Stupid one, but it bugs me out: I want sideburn options indepedent of hair styles.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oi_5lXIT5AY …
After double checking, it seems that the difference in EMS for Renegade or Paragon playthroughs is minor. So you're right on that one
Now, what you are saying is basically what I am looking for, but not just for Renegades. I want Renegades to suffer and succeed in equal amounts because of their pragmatism, but I also want Paragons to suffer and succeed in equal amounts because of their altruism/idealism. I want a perfect playthrough to require the player to be considerate of all options and not just stick to a single ideal like Paragon or Renegade.
Look, you're muddling the whole concept of idealism and pragmatism in the first place.
If an action doesn't lead to the best outcome, it's not pragmatic. That's by definition. That's what the word pragmatism means. The idea of not achieving the best outcome because you were too pragmatic is contradictory. It makes no sense. If a person murders another innocent person and later faces heavy consequences because, surprise surprise, people aren't happy about that, they don't lose because they were 'too pragmatic.' They lose because they were incredibly stupid.
This isn't how it works. Idealism and pragmatism aren't two forking paths that are opposed to one another.
Retour en haut