307 réponses à ce sujet

[Tron Mega]

i dont like it being paragon VS renegade. red or blue. id much rather have a similar story with a few large decision, but vary the dialogue instead of varying the story. its hard not to see bioware getting more linear in story, and instead of making things so black and white, just create a story but give it a few different veiw points. give me a philosophical choice, a knowledgable choice, a sarcastic choice, and maybe a few more. much like the game alpha protocol.

i certainly didnt like ME2s reputation bar. constantly having to paragon everything or later on you pay consequences for not being ultra paragon. even made worse when some choice were barely labeled correctly as paragon or renegade.

[David7204]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's what a story is: 'predestination.' That's probably not the best term, but it fits well enough.

By nature, a story is about the exceptional, the unique, the uncanny, the unexpected, the unlikely. When someone says "I have a story to tell you," you expect something worthwhile. As you should. You except something amazing or incredible or fantastic. So yes, the protagonist of any story is 'predestined' to experience something or other right from the get-go. In a story about heroism, the protagonist is 'predestined' to encounter heroism.

If nothing happened, then there wouldn't be a story. So yes, the audience will always 'know' to some extent.

"Hero does good deeds and gets rewarded" isn't uncanny or unexpected though. It's cliche and formulaic. You replied "immense frustration" to the Vido example I posted above, even though it's a perfectly logical outcome. You're responding to the formula you expect the writers to have codified instead of what's actually happening in the narrative.

That's the point I'm trying to get across. The player should be made to stop and think about the consequences of the actions they're taking. You said paragon = heroism and heroism should be rewarded. I say players shouldn't be secure in the knowledge that clicking that same corner of the wheel every single time will always work out for them.

Heroism is not cliche or formulatic. That irritates me. As TV tropes says, "There is nothing new under the sun. Every story is influenced by what came before it — and  storytellers (e.g., writers, directors, actors) are bound to show that influence, intentionally or not, in the process of telling. Just because something's been used before doesn't mean it's a cliché."

And no. It isn't a 'perfectly logical outcome' in the context of a story. It's a perfectly logical outcome in real life - just as Shepard slipping in the shower and killing himself, or choking on a walnut and dying, or having a heart attack would be a far more likely outcome in real life than defeating the Reapers. But real life and stories have different rules and different expecations that I have discussed in earlier posts. 

Being 'secure in the knowledge that your choices will play out more-or-less how you expect' is practically the very definition of meaningful choice. Because how can a choice possibly be meaningful if the consequence bears no relation to the player's intention intent and knowledge of the choice when they make it? 

What you're asking for is choices that are presented to us the same way they are presented to Shepard - but that's completely impossible. Because most players aren't heroes. They aren't incredibly smart. They can't possible come up with the same conclusions and solutions that Shepard does. That's the way it is for all video games. We aren't space marines, or army rangers or anything like that. Yet we play them. We wouldn't be able to come up with the responses to situations that Shepard does. Yet we play him.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 04:47 .

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's what a story is: 'predestination.' That's probably not the best term, but it fits well enough.

By nature, a story is about the exceptional, the unique, the uncanny, the unexpected, the unlikely. When someone says "I have a story to tell you," you expect something worthwhile. As you should. You except something amazing or incredible or fantastic. So yes, the protagonist of any story is 'predestined' to experience something or other right from the get-go. In a story about heroism, the protagonist is 'predestined' to encounter heroism.

If nothing happened, then there wouldn't be a story. So yes, the audience will always 'know' to some extent.

"Hero does good deeds and gets rewarded" isn't uncanny or unexpected though. It's cliche and formulaic. You replied "immense frustration" to the Vido example I posted above, even though it's a perfectly logical outcome. You're responding to the formula you expect the writers to have codified instead of what's actually happening in the narrative.

That's the point I'm trying to get across. The player should be made to stop and think about the consequences of the actions they're taking. You said paragon = heroism and heroism should be rewarded. I say players shouldn't be secure in the knowledge that clicking that same corner of the wheel every single time will always work out for them.

Heroism is not cliche or formulatic. That irritates me. As TV tropes says, "There is nothing new under the sun. Every story is influenced by what came before it — and  storytellers (e.g., writers, directors, actors) are bound to show that influence, intentionally or not, in the process of telling. Just because something's been used before doesn't mean it's a cliché."

And no. It isn't a 'perfectly logical outcome' in the context of a story. It's a perfectly logical outcome in real life - just as Shepard slipping in the shower and killing himself, or choking on a walnut and dying, or having a heart attack would be a far more likely outcome in real life than defeating the Reapers. But real life and stories have different rules and different expecations that I have discussed in earlier posts. 

Being 'secure in the knowledge that your choices will play out more-or-less how you expect' is practically the very definition of meaningful choice. Because how can a choice possibly be meaningful if the consequence bears no relation to the player's intention intent and knowledge of the choice when they make it? 

What you're asking for is choices that are presented to us the same way they are presented to Shepard - but that's completely impossible. Because most players aren't heroes. They aren't incredibly smart. They can't possible come up with the same conclusions and solutions that Shepard does. That's the way it is for all video games. We aren't space marines, or army rangers or anything like that. Yet we play them. We wouldn't be able to come up with the responses to situations that Shepard does. Yet we play him.

Why dumb it down? Why assume most gamers are morons? They introduced 3 modes with this game: action, story and RPG. Why not make it "skip story because pew pew", "pick the upper right option on the dialogue wheel" and "use some brainpower and make some real choices"? I bought ME3 specifically because it was supposed to be an RPG, a role-playing game I can relate to, something that makes sense. I want food for thought but I don't want them to chew it for me. And this is the exact opposite of meaningfu choice. You get burned 95% of the time when you pick renegade actions/responses. This is the definition of illusion of choice. "Cake or death?"

Modifié par CynicalShep, 30 janvier 2013 - 05:24 .

[k.lalh]

CynicalShep wrote...

Why dumb it down? Why assume most gamers are morons? They introduced 3 modes with this game: action, story and RPG. Why not make it "skip story because pew pew", "pick the upper right option on the dialogue wheel" and "use some brainpower and make some real choices"? I bought ME3 specifically because it was supposed to be an RPG, a role-playing game I can relate to, something that makes sense. I want food for thought but I don't want them to chew it for me. And this is the exact opposite of meaningfu choice. You get burned 95% of the time when you pick renegade actions/responses. This is the definition of illusion of choice. "Cake or death?"

This was indeed one of the main issues with ME3, even though I generally play Paragon, the choices were so glaringly obvious, that playing as a renegade just felt terrible, kind of like I was playing as a deranged psycopath. Not like "the end justifies the means" sort of thing we got with ME 1 and 2

On your "Cake or death" metaphor...I couldn't help but think of Portal, where cake = death

[CynicalShep]

k.lalh wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Why dumb it down? Why assume most gamers are morons? They introduced 3 modes with this game: action, story and RPG. Why not make it "skip story because pew pew", "pick the upper right option on the dialogue wheel" and "use some brainpower and make some real choices"? I bought ME3 specifically because it was supposed to be an RPG, a role-playing game I can relate to, something that makes sense. I want food for thought but I don't want them to chew it for me. And this is the exact opposite of meaningfu choice. You get burned 95% of the time when you pick renegade actions/responses. This is the definition of illusion of choice. "Cake or death?"

This was indeed one of the main issues with ME3, even though I generally play Paragon, the choices were so glaringly obvious, that playing as a renegade just felt terrible, kind of like I was playing as a deranged psycopath. Not like "the end justifies the means" sort of thing we got with ME 1 and 2

On your "Cake or death" metaphor...I couldn't help but think of Portal, where cake = death

Unfortunately, that doesn't hold true for Mass Effect

[DirtyPhoenix]

I'd rather not have ANY morality system. Just different choices with unknown consequences. Like what is in Human Revolution. I didn't get any bad red points for blackmailing Hass, nor did I get any good blue points for saving Malik. None of the choices were colour-coded to tell me they were good or evil. They were simply.. choices. And I had to deal the consequences later on (Hass trying to shoot me and Malik killing a few hostiles for me). Thats how it should be: Just choices, not "good" and "bad" choices. It would be also good if ME4 incorporated HR's persuasion system rather than blue and red autowin buttons.

In short, I think these good-evil and paragon-renegade sliders are childish and need to be done away with. They've had their time.

[David7204]

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 05:49 .

[DoodlyDangus]

David7204 wrote...

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

I can see the play himself trying to defend Tali now....

"Commander, we know you're bound by law to defend Tali, but please lose some weight and put some clothes on."

[k.lalh]

David7204 wrote...

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

Man that would be fun. Probably hard as hell, but fun nonetheless.

Maybe brush up on my debate skills too, I was the captain on my High School's team.

But I do admit, I have never convinced my opponent to commit suicide. Shepard did that twice

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

I could have. It's not to say that I would have succeeded but I'd lie if I said that wasn't possible. I haven't had Shepard's N7 training and there is no race of half-metallic squids that's trying to kill Humanity. But that is not what I was saying. Since I am not capable of meleeing a yahg or crushing someone's skull wih biotics why give me any dialogue choices? Since my accuracy with a gun is worse than Shepard's why not include auto-target in game? Make a game with cutscenes, auto-target combat and dialogue wheels with one option: "the right option". If you are trying to make an argument considers both sides of the coin. 
And how is realistic outcome impossible to implement? What are the vast number of reasons? Why should it matter who Shepard is? Balak will always be a terrorist who intends to do Humanity harm. 

Modifié par CynicalShep, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:11 .

[GimmeDaGun]

DinoSteve wrote...

Would you guys like to see Morailty repsented differently in Mass Effect 4 and if so how and if not would you like to see it tweaked.

I think it could use an overhaul.
I think if you are playing as a paragon there are times when you should get angry an example being when you get back from the geth ship in ME3, or in your conversation with TIM after you first time on the collector base in ME2. I also think you can be a renegade without being an ass and some of the renegade choices come off that way.

Dammit wrong forum, oh well.

1. Get rid of the morality-meter: It would be nice to see a The Witcher type of system: no good or evil choices, and no morality level (I always found the morality meter kind of stupid), only deeds and consequences (sometimes not so pleasant, or not what you would expect... even sometimes the lack of impact of your deed). It's your deeds and intentions which define your morality after all (the consequences are not of your making, they are not up to you - so sometimes if you behave in an evil way, you may get a better result... but that doesn't make you a better person) and not a stupid, calculable morality-meter with the dull I'm so good, I'm so bad gibberish. In this regard the whole series was very simplistic. So drop the current morality system or hide the level of morality from the player (there could be a morality meter, but one which would not be shown to us). 

2. It would be also nice if the dialogue wheel was presented in a different fashion: no paragon, and no renegade (no all nice and happy vs. ruthless and wicked) options. Just options with different approaches. Because the present dialogue wheel becomes dull after a while, just as the paragon and renagade sides of your choices and consequences - you kind of always see them coming. It would be nice to have a The Witcher - Deus Ex: HR kind of model where you can achive what you want with different approaches and sometimes you might even fail to get information out of someone or to persuade someone, so you'd have to find another way. There could be people who are not easily frightened (so they would be immune to your "renegade-ism"), but could be persuaded by other means, and vice versa. This feature could be used with the interupts also. It would be nice to see our hero fail if he or she gets too cocky or too nice in certain situations (this could also be connected to your character's level or abilities... eg. you fail in a certain situation if you don't have the needed level of "strength" - just to say something - or reputation required...yeah a bit far-fetched, but I'm just throwing around ideas). 

3. Dyre situations need fast decisions: there could be a new feature which is timed dialogues. You'd have a few seconds to decide what to do. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:23 .

[Hey]

I preferred the ME1 system of putting points in the charm or intimidate skills and then the dialog choices are availible based on this rather than the game judging my behavior.

The reputation bar was cool though as a seperate check.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

It almost seems like you're trying not to understand at this point. Read what Pirate wrote. That's what we're talking about. Complex moral circumstances with nobody holding your hand. Same dialogue, but without the "top-right always wins" organization. No color coding, no paragon or renegade points. No "wink-wink nudge-nudge you should do this and feel this way about it." Actions and consequences. Nothing else.

As CynicalShep said, "give me food for thought, but don't chew it for me."

Some of the "decisions" in ME3 (like what to do with Jona Sederis) were embarrassing in their simplicity (Release the ranting psychopath who's vowed revenge against me from jail or not? WHAT SHOULD I DO?!). I miss the days of ME1 where you're approached by a businesswoman asking you to engage in espionage on a rival businessman suspected of violating her company's patents, and you were given no less than six different ways to handle it.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:34 .

[CynicalShep]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Would you guys like to see Morailty repsented differently in Mass Effect 4 and if so how and if not would you like to see it tweaked.

I think it could use an overhaul.
I think if you are playing as a paragon there are times when you should get angry an example being when you get back from the geth ship in ME3, or in your conversation with TIM after you first time on the collector base in ME2. I also think you can be a renegade without being an ass and some of the renegade choices come off that way.

Dammit wrong forum, oh well.

1. Get rid of the morality-meter: It would be nice to see a The Witcher type of system: no good or evil choices, and no morality level (I always found the morality meter kind of stupid), only deeds and consequences (sometimes not so pleasant, or not what you would expect... even sometimes the lack of impact of your deed). It's your deeds and intentions which define your morality after all (the consequences are not of your making, they are not up to you - so sometimes if you behave in an evil way, you may get a better result... but that doesn't make you a better person) and not a stupid, calculable morality-meter with the dull I'm so good, I'm so bad gibberish. In this regard the whole series was very simplistic. So drop the current morality system or hide the level of morality from the player (there could be a morality meter, but one which would not be shown to us). 

2. It would be also nice if the dialogue wheel was presented in a different fashion: no paragon, and no renegade (no all nice and happy vs. ruthless and wicked) options. Just options with different approaches. Because the present dialogue wheel becomes dull after a while, just as the paragon and renagade sides of your choices and consequences - you kind of always see them coming. It would be nice to have a The Witcher - Deus Ex: HR kind of model where you can achive what you want with different approaches and sometimes you might even fail to get information out of someone or to persuade someone, so you'd have to find another way. There could be people who are not easily frightened (so they would be immune to your "renegade-ism"), but could be persuaded by other means, and vice versa. This feature could be used with the interupts also. It would be nice to see our hero fail if he or she gets too cocky or too nice in certain situations (this could also be connected to your character's level or abilities... eg. you fail in a certain situation if you don't have the needed level of "strength" - just to say something - or reputation required...yeah a bit far-fetched, but I'm just throwing around ideas). 

3. Dyre situations need fast decisions: there could be a new feature which is timed dialogues. You'd have a few seconds to decide what to do. 

This a hundred times^

[k.lalh]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Are you saying that, you, personally, could have stood at trial and defended Tali? That you, personally could have convinced the quarians and geth to stand down? That you, personally, could talk down an adversary with a weapon multiple times? Would you be capable of those things in real life?

No. You're being dishonest. You want 'real difficulty,' then that's what real difficulty is. You don't really want that kind of difficulty. Just the illusion of it. It would be impossible to implement anyway, for a vast number of reasons.

The illusion is that you're doing any of the work or bearing any of the consequences. You aren't. Shepard is. And there's nothing that can change that.

It almost seems like you're trying not to understand at this point. Read what Pirate wrote. That's what we're talking about. Complex moral circumstances with nobody holding your hand. Same dialogue, but without the "top-right always wins" organization. No color coding, no paragon or renegade points. No "wink-wink nudge-nudge you should do this and feel this way about it." Actions and consequences. Nothing else.

As CynicalShep said, "give me food for thought, but don't chew it for me."

Pretty much this.

By implementing the colour coded crap, all it does is stupifies the game for the people who are just trying to get through it. It's pretty obvious which choices are paragon and renegade without the colour coded wheel, but what's less obvious is what choices are better Paragon/ Renegade options.

By eliminating the colour coding, it would offer the player a more immersive feel to the game, and they would be inclined to pick options that they think make the most sense in the situation. Which would be based on your feelings at the time. No more straight renegade/paragon runs.

[k.lalh]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

(snip)

3. Dyre situations need fast decisions: there could be a new feature which is timed dialogues. You'd have a few seconds to decide what to do. 

I really like the timed option thing. One normally doesn't stand there blankly, for minutes, thinking of something to say. This kind of system I believe was the same that they implemented in The Walking Dead, and it worked out really well. The game did beat out ME3 for game of the year. That should tell you something right away.

[David7204]

No. This is exactly what you're talking about. You're trying to pretend that you're capable of 'acting' through the game yourself. That you're capable of 'being a hero' yourself.

You aren't coming with any of the arguments. Shepard is.
You aren't the one living with the consequences. Shepard is.
You aren't the one doing any of the work. Shepard is.

You keep pretending that you don't need the game to 'hold your hand,' but you absolutely do. You are not doing the work. You aren't! Shepard is. You're pressing a button.

All stories 'tell' the audience information. They wouldn't be stories otherwise. It's completely ridiculous to resent the story 'telling' you information. You need to accept that your heroism as a player is an illusion. It's fake. Shepard's heroism is real, and all you're proposing is to make THAT fake by pointlessly obscuring it.

[David7204]

Nobody here is really talking about the color-coding, I don't think. Because color-coding or no, it's completely obvious what the 'right' choice is. As it should be. Save lives, help people out, etc.

[UrgentArchengel]

Going back to the original style before the Dialogue wheel would be a nice change.

[Magiking117]

I agree with DeinonSlayer; I shouldn't have the 'good' and 'bad' choices spelt out to me. I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and have come to the conclusion that the way ME handles choices actually hurts my experience with the games. It genuinely frustrates me that if I want to go down the hero path, all I have to do is pick the blue text, or any north of the dialogue wheel. It makes it so I don't have to consider anything when presented with a scenario. All one needs to do is hold he stick top left/rigt and bash A/X.

I've been playing the original Deus Ex and I love the way they present choice. It's just a list of options and you pick whichever you feel is best for the JC you're crafting - or based on you're own thoughts. There is one option which made me question my decision, but I knew it was for the best. Turns out it was, and lead to an easier time with a future boss. I'm playing a 'good' JC, but the choice I made would have been considered a 'renegade' one in ME and I probably wouldn't have chosen it. Here, however, 'I' decide what's for the best. 'I' chose what 'I' - as a 'paragon' JC - think is right. Whatever the consequences, I will have to deal. What's important is that I make a decision based on my own thoughts.

Future ME games need to be vague about their choices, otherwise it simply takes away the charm of having choice. No more spelling it out, and penalising me for choosing what I feel is the right choice for my 'Paragon' or 'renegade' character. 

Modifié par Magiking117, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:43 .

[David7204]

Yeah, we've definitely got two entirely different topics here that people are pretending to be the same thing.

They aren't.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:43 .

[k.lalh]

David7204 wrote...

Nobody here is really talking about the color-coding, I don't think. Because color-coding or no, it's completely obvious what the 'right' choice is. As it should be. Save lives, help people out, etc.

But is the 'right' choice what people pick? History is filled with people making impulsive decisions.

By adding something like that in the game, it adds a humanizing element, rather than the cookie-cutter paragon, renegade choices.

And of course we get the entire thing is a simulation. It is a game afterall. But the complaint that I (I don't speak for the others) have is that, there aren't enough choices within ME3 to accurately build that illusion of you, the player, dictating what Shep does, or what his/her decisions are, and that should not be difficult to impliment.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

No. This is exactly what you're talking about. You're trying to pretend that you're capable of 'acting' through the game yourself. That you're capable of 'being a hero' yourself.

You aren't coming with any of the arguments. Shepard is.
You aren't the one living with the consequences. Shepard is.
You aren't the one doing any of the work. Shepard is.

You keep pretending that you don't need the game to 'hold your hand,' but you absolutely do. You are not doing the work. You aren't! Shepard is. You're pressing a button.

All stories 'tell' the audience information. They wouldn't be stories otherwise. It's completely ridiculous to resent the story 'telling' you information. You need to accept that your heroism as a player is an illusion. It's fake. Shepard's heroism is real, and all you're proposing is to make THAT fake by pointlessly obscuring it.

Fantastic argument. They should make it a movie, then. Cutscenes, pew pew, auto-dialogue, cutscenes, slideshow. Why bother?

[DirtyPhoenix]

David7204 wrote...

Nobody here is really talking about the color-coding, I don't think. Because color-coding or no, it's completely obvious what the 'right' choice is. As it should be. Save lives, help people out, etc.

Sometimes its not so obvious. Think of letting Bakal off/killing him. And I do believe games especially RPGs need to work on making the "right" choice less "obvious".

[David7204]

A game is supposed to interactive. It's supposed to be fun. But is it a measure of the player's marksmanship, even if the player character is a soldier? No. Is it a measure of the player's strength? The player's intelligence? No.

You kept repeating 'make the player THINK' a while back. But what you're suggesting really has very little to do with thinking. Truly having the player's intelligence and reasoning determine outcomes would be not only impossible, but lead to a miserable story since the overwhelming majority of us are nowhere near skilled enough to steer situations such as the ones Shepard faces to anything close to a good outcome.

Modifié par David7204, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:58 .