27740 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

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.

The problem arises when it comes to genuinely difficult decisions, like Legion's loyalty mission. Renegade is kill the heretics, paragon is... brainwashing them and fundamentally altering the way they think to your own ends. There's no "Good" in this equation, yet Paragon is meant to be the "good" option. Trying to force the player's actions into this unstable binary relationship hinders the writer's ability to craft interesting decisions and the player's ability to roleplay.

 

Really, there is no benefit to the morality system.

[Drone223]

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."

Indeed it would also make choices more ambiguous and would be even better if companions respond in different ways like DA:I instead of just accepting everything the player does in trilogy.

[BabyPuncher]

The problem arises when it comes to genuinely difficult decisions, like Legion's loyalty mission. Renegade is kill the heretics, paragon is... brainwashing them and fundamentally altering the way they think to your own ends. There's no "Good" in this equation, yet Paragon is meant to be the "good" option. Trying to force the player's actions into this unstable binary relationship hinders the writer's ability to craft interesting decisions and the player's ability to roleplay.

 

First of all, that's a fragile assertion. I really don't see why it's such an awful thing to undo the damage Sovereign did. The true geth came to support Shepard's 'ends' on their own, without any brainwashing. But secondly, BioWare could simply award no morality points for that one particular choice. Mass Effect has done it before.
 

[Malanek]

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.

 

This isn't how it works. Idealism and pragmatism aren't two forking paths that are opposed to one another.

I wish this was in another thread but I strongly disagree with your statement here, mainly because it ignores uncertainty. When you make a decision and you don't know the outcome, the idealist decision will be "best" if everything is successful. The pragmatic  decision is more likely to be "successful".

 

Idealism and pragmatism are generally opposed to each other. They are much closer fits to the mass effect moralities of Paragon and Renegade than Good/Evil are.

[BabyPuncher]

I wish this was in another thread but I strongly disagree with your statement here, mainly because it ignores uncertainty. When you make a decision and you don't know the outcome, the idealist decision will be "best" if everything is successful. The pragmatic  decision is more likely to be "successful".

 

Idealism and pragmatism are generally opposed to each other. They are much closer fits to the mass effect moralities of Paragon and Renegade than Good/Evil are.

 

They're not opposed to each other at all. They're one and the same.

 

Uncertainty really doesn't - and shouldn't - exist in stories. The players' choices mattering shouldn't be uncertain. It should be a given. The story enunciating a theme shouldn't be uncertain because life is uncertain. It needs to be a given.

[Heimdall]

First of all, that's a fragile assertion. I really don't see why it's such an awful thing to undo the damage Sovereign did. The true geth came to support Shepard's 'ends' on their own, without any brainwashing. But secondly, BioWare could simply award no morality points for that one particular choice. Mass Effect has done it before.
 

Undo what damage?  The heretic geth weren't hacked, they developed a different perspective.  It's not an error, as Legion says.

 

If you're fine with waving the morality dichotomy with this decision, then why include any morality system at all?

[BabyPuncher]

I'm fairly sure they were hacked. By Sovereign. And because the system doesn't work for one choice doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.

[Heimdall]

They're not opposed to each other at all. They're one and the same.

 

Uncertainty really doesn't - and shouldn't - exist in stories. The players' choices mattering shouldn't be uncertain. It should be a given. The story enunciating a theme shouldn't be uncertain because life is uncertain. It needs to be a given.

Uncertainly certainly exists in stories, unless you're metagaming.  The character making the decision does not know, with certainty, what the outcome of their actions will.  The player might know, but at that point you're not roleplaying.

[BabyPuncher]

Uncertainly certainly exists in stories, unless you're metagaming.  The character making the decision does not know, with certainty, what the outcome of their actions will.  The player might know, but at that point you're not roleplaying.

 

The kind of roleplaying you're talking about doesn't exist. We're always 'metagaming.'

 

If players really did 'roleplay,' they would only ever bring companions they don't like on missions, because the ones they like might well be killed on a very routine mission to gather bear hides or whatever. And a bunch of other stuff that players obviously don't do because it would make the game far less fun and immersive.
 

In any case, I'm not interested in roleplaying at any level.

[Heimdall]

I'm fairly sure they were hacked. By Sovereign. And because the system doesn't work for one choice doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.

They weren't, a minority of the collective embraced Sovereign's offer to provide them means to achieve their goal of creating a superstructure.  That minority split with the collective and became the heretics.  They weren't hacked.

 

I'm not saying the system never works, I'm saying its an obstacle to nuanced decision making, in crafting decisions where you can't boil things down to "moral" or "ruthless".

[BabyPuncher]

They weren't, a minority of the collective embraced Sovereign's offer to provide them means to achieve their goal of creating a superstructure.  That minority split with the collective and became the heretics.  They weren't hacked.

 

I'm almost certain Legion said something about a process equaling to 1.000001 was modified to equal 1.000002 or something like that. By Sovereign.
 

[Malanek]

They're not opposed to each other at all. They're one and the same.

 

Uncertainty really doesn't - and shouldn't - exist in stories. The players' choices mattering shouldn't be uncertain. It should be a given. The story enunciating a theme shouldn't be uncertain because life is uncertain. It needs to be a given.

I'm not even sure where you coming from with this. Of course uncertainty exists in stories where you have to make a decision because (for the first time at least) you don't know what is going to happen.

[Heimdall]

The kind of roleplaying you're talking about doesn't exist. We're always 'metagaming.'

 

If players really did 'roleplay,' they would only ever bring companions they don't like on missions, because the ones they like might well be killed on a very routine mission to gather bear hides or whatever. And a bunch of other stuff that players obviously don't do because it would make the game far less fun and immersive.
 

In any case, I'm not interested in roleplaying at any level.

Actually some people do exactly what you describe, but there are other ways to roleplay.  Perhaps the player never brings characters they dislike because they don't trust them to watch their back, etc.  Roleplaying a character can lead one to a great many differing actions depending on the roleplayed personality.  You have a very narrow and simplistic conception of roleplaying, have you ever tried it?

[MrDbow]

[Heimdall]

I'm almost certain Legion said something about a process equaling to 1.000001 was modified to equal 1.000002 or something like that. By Sovereign.
 

He says that in the heretics the processing whatever was different to the other geth, as you describe, but he does not attribute it to Sovereign and when Shepard describes it as a "math error" Legion corrects them, saying that it is not an error, just a difference in variables (Or something like that).  These geth had different values, so they came to different conclusions.

 

At no point does he implicate Sovereign.

[wolfhowwl]

David7204?

[chris2365]

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. 

 

Pragmatism: a reasonable and logical way of doing things or thinking about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories

 

Being pragmatic doesn't necessarily mean getting the best outcome. It's using logic thinking that it will get you the best outcome.

 

Like with the example of Zaeed I posted earlier, a pragmatic Shepard could think logically and reason that ensuring Zaeed's loyalty will save many more lives in the long run rather than saving the civilians. That's being pragmatic, looking at the cold hard numbers with logic and basing it your decision off of that.

 

If you look at the Paragon decision of saving the civilians, we know it leads to the best outcome, but Shepard doesn't. How can you logically say that making a detour to save civilians when your primary objective is to stop a crime boss and ensuring the loyalty of your crew is the most pragmatic course of action? It isn't logical. How is saving civilians supposed to help you? Now, they might help you later in the mission, but you don't know that. It's a possibility, an idea. In that spur of the moment, it's most logical to go straight for your objective rather than deal in maybes that may help or hinder you. That's idealism.

 

Being too pragmatic can also lead to a bad outcome. That's what I want Renegades to have to deal with. For example, the protagonist has a decision to make. Does he sacrifice a small outskirt town in order to give his army time to fortify his main base, or does he try to save it from the enemy?

 

If you're a pragmatist, you'd reason with logic that the loss of the small town is worthwhile if you consider that you'll be a much more effective fighting force by giving yourself extra time to prepare for the enemy, which could save more lives and inflict more damage on the enemy in the long run. Now the writers can spin this decision many ways, both helpful and detrimental to the player, but here's a few ways it can backfire:

 

1) You're portrayed as cruel leader, demoralizing your troops (especially if your troops are from said small town)

2) The population of the small town is captured and turned into husks, leading to a greater challenge

3) One of the civilians who managed to escape reveals that he had a big and well equipped stock room with lots of advanced military gear that could have been helpful.

 

See what I mean? You were being pragmatic and logical in thinking that sacrificing the small town would help you in the long run, but it didn't. It could also have helped you as you intended, depending on how the writers want, but I just wanted to show that pragmatism is not equal to getting the best outcome. Like idealism, it's using a certain ideology in order to try and get the best outcome. And I want both idealistic and pragmatic decisions to bring both positive and negative consequences, unlike the Mass Effect trilogy where being idealistic rarely backfired.

 

(Either way, if you want to continue this conversation, it might be best to do so in another thread or via PM. Better we don't derail this thread with morality discussion   )

[BabyPuncher]

I'm not even sure where you coming from with this. Of course uncertainty exists in stories where you have to make a decision because (for the first time at least) you don't know what is going to happen.

 

But you do. More or less.

 

If the player, say, makes a decision to support and help the Volus, they should be reasonably certain that decision will lead to some sort of good outcome with the Volus. That it will not lead to the Volus all dying or going into ruin. And the story needs follow through with that certainty.

 

We don't know the exact details, but the player knows the general direction a choice will lead. That's the whole point of choices mattering.

[dreamgazer]

In any case, I'm not interested in roleplaying at any level.

[themikefest]

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.

I've done a couple of paragon playthroughs and found them boring. Too much of a goody-two-shoe
 

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.

I don't agree. You may believe that, but I sure as heck don't. I consider an evil or a very renegade playthrough far more superior to an all goody-good playthrough. What make's it great is that I'm  able to get the best ending. Excellent.

 

Here's a playthrough I did that I'm sure most people have never done and would consider to be evil. I don't consider it evil. It fits the Shepard I play.

[Heimdall]

But you do. More or less.

 

If the player, say, makes a decision to support and help the Volus, they should be reasonably certain that decision will lead to some sort of good outcome with the Volus. That it will not lead to the Volus all dying or going into ruin. And the story needs follow through with that certainty.

 

We don't know the exact details, but the player knows the general direction a choice will lead. That's the whole point of choices mattering.

We must have very different conceptions of choice mattering.  As I, and I think many people on this board define it, choice mattering is about different choices having different outcomes, not those outcomes being predictable.

[BabyPuncher]

We must have very different conceptions of choice mattering.  As I, and I think many Mass Effect fans define it, choice mattering is about different choices having different outcomes, not those outcomes being predictable.

 

Really? You think players would be happy with, say, the salarians being killed after the player does everything they can to support and help the salarians? Being killed because the player chose to help them?

 

You think players would be pleased with their love interest being killed because they were picked as a love interest?

 

Those are certainly choices leading to different outcomes.

 

I don't think players would be very happy if those things were implemented. I think players would largely be enraged and accuse BioWare of criminal incompetence in their writing and relying on shock value.

[Heimdall]

Really? You think players would be happy with, say, the salarians being killed after the player does everything they can to support and help the salarians? Being killed because the player chose to help them?

 

You think players would be pleased with their love interest to be killed because they were picked as a love interest?

 

Those are certainly choices leading to different outcomes.

 

I don't think players would be very happy if those things were implemented.

Whether or not the outcomes of those choices please the player is a separate issue to choices mattering.

 

It would be a problem of choices not mattering if the salarians were killed no matter what Shepard did.

[God]

David's back!

[ElitePinecone]

How about those tweets!