292 réponses à ce sujet

[Applepie_Svk]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Did you just equate the heretics to the geth?
Seriously?

Two is greater than one, but two is less than three.

you do the math. 

It´s like saying that we should killed all the germans after WW2 because certain part of them was involved in war or the holocaust.

[nos_astra]

I just thought about decisions sequences.

The problem in a branching narrative is that it quickly gets out of hand. That's why ME3 did a lot of railroading and autodialogue.

Now what if decisions mean your collecting points and only a certain amount of points mean you have enough influence to influence the characters's decisions?

Not only does this remove the necessity to branch too much, the outcomes would also be less predictable.

Choice 1
A - 2 points
B - 1 point
C - 0 points

Choice 2
A - 1 point
B - 0 points

Choice 3
A - 0 points
B - 0 points
C - 1 point

Final choice
>= 3 points --> Choose A or B
< 3 points --> NPCs decide B

I wonder if that could work and if it would really reduce complexity without removing choices.

You could add some sort of personality variable to the mix:
PC is more of a diplomat 1 point
PC is more of a hothead 0.5 points

(pragmatist, idealist whatever, picked at character creation and can change over the course of the game depending on choices)

Hothead making all the right choices: 4 * 0.5 = 2 < 3 --> NPCs decide for themselves

In another scenario it may be
<= 2 points --> choose A or B
> 2 points --> NPCs decide A

Hothead making all the right choices: 4 * 0.5 = 2 = 2 --> choose A or B

Autodialogue and choices combined.

Modifié par klarabella, 13 mars 2013 - 11:11 .

[Xilizhra]

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

You're forgetting the ten thousand people crewing the Destiny Ascension as well. There was little question about it being the right choice.

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

You're forgetting the ten thousand people crewing the Destiny Ascension as well. There was little question about it being the right choice.

I absolutely disagree. Your priority at the time was surely stopping the geth/Sovereign attack. And yet you are sacrificing a full third of your fleet, jepardising the entire battle, just to save your flagship.

Okay, as it turns out, it IS possible to save the Destiny Ascension AND repel the geth attack, but that's the virtue of hindsight. Without metagaming that's a very tough call, and neither is clearly the right/wrong decision.

[BD Manchild]

There's certainly almost no payoff for many of the decisions you made in the previous games. I've always had the view that, with so many variables that they had to keep track of over the course of the series, many of the problems with the narrative of ME3 and how it reflected those choices (or failed to) are the result of Bioware painting themselves into a corner.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

You're forgetting the ten thousand people crewing the Destiny Ascension as well. There was little question about it being the right choice.

I absolutely disagree. Your priority at the time was surely stopping the geth/Sovereign attack. And yet you are sacrificing a full third of your fleet, jepardising the entire battle, just to save your flagship.

Okay, as it turns out, it IS possible to save the Destiny Ascension AND repel the geth attack, but that's the virtue of hindsight. Without metagaming that's a very tough call, and neither is clearly the right/wrong decision.

Saren's dead, my countermeasure is in place, Sovereign is locked out of the Citadel. At this point, Sovereign's already lost without its final gambit of using Saren as an avatar (we can tell this because, given that this failing seemed to have either killed or mortally wounded Sovereign, it still had to have been a significantly better option than just hanging around trying to break into the Citadel; either the fleet was about to break through Sovereign's shields anyway and the strength of the Reapers was vastly overestimated, or it simply couldn't break through without inside assistance, and I find the latter more plausible).

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

Saren's dead, my countermeasure is in place, Sovereign is locked out of the Citadel. At this point, Sovereign's already lost without its final gambit of using Saren as an avatar (we can tell this because, given that this failing seemed to have either killed or mortally wounded Sovereign, it still had to have been a significantly better option than just hanging around trying to break into the Citadel; either the fleet was about to break through Sovereign's shields anyway and the strength of the Reapers was vastly overestimated, or it simply couldn't break through without inside assistance, and I find the latter more plausible).

Saren might be dead, but any geth who managed to get to the Council chamber could do what he was doing. Sovereign is a totally unknown enemy - we have no idea of what it is or is not capable of, and how much destruction it is capable of, whether or not it actually manages to take control of the Citadel. When you make the choice about the Destiny Ascension, the outcome of the battle is still very much in the balance, and throwing away a third of your fleet seems a foolhardy thing to do.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Saren's dead, my countermeasure is in place, Sovereign is locked out of the Citadel. At this point, Sovereign's already lost without its final gambit of using Saren as an avatar (we can tell this because, given that this failing seemed to have either killed or mortally wounded Sovereign, it still had to have been a significantly better option than just hanging around trying to break into the Citadel; either the fleet was about to break through Sovereign's shields anyway and the strength of the Reapers was vastly overestimated, or it simply couldn't break through without inside assistance, and I find the latter more plausible).

Saren might be dead, but any geth who managed to get to the Council chamber could do what he was doing. Sovereign is a totally unknown enemy - we have no idea of what it is or is not capable of, and how much destruction it is capable of, whether or not it actually manages to take control of the Citadel. When you make the choice about the Destiny Ascension, the outcome of the battle is still very much in the balance, and throwing away a third of your fleet seems a foolhardy thing to do.

Yes, because I'm that afraid of geth showing up after having killed hundreds already, including all of them that I met on the Citadel. In any case, the Destiny Ascension might not be damaged enough to not contribute at all to the battle, and if there's a chance I can secure its main gun, it could be extremely valuable. It's a risk, but a risk worth taking.

[Budgier]

In my first playthrough I'm pretty sure I left the council to die, my line of thinking being that I wanted as much force possible to take down Sovereign. I also hated the council and felt they didn't deserve Shepards help after what they did to him.

That being said now I always save them, you get chastised for not doing so in later games not to mention the replacement council is 10x worse to you.

[Ferretinabun]

@Xilizhra - You said it - it's a risk. That is absolutely right, it's a gamble. And one that could have backfired horribly. Saving the Destiny Ascension could have cost you the citadel. Shepard alone is not enough to take down entire fleets of geth ships. The priority is surely Sovereign, and you're gambling with your reinforcements. This is not a 'right v wrong' decision.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

@Xilizhra - You said it - it's a risk. That is absolutely right, it's a gamble. And one that could have backfired horribly. Saving the Destiny Ascension could have cost you the citadel. Shepard alone is not enough to take down entire fleets of geth ships. The priority is surely Sovereign, and you're gambling with your reinforcements. This is not a 'right v wrong' decision.

It's a risk, inasmuch as every single decision is a risk. Sacrificing the DA is also a risk. And the geth ships... would be intercepted by the Alliance fleet if it showed up right then, so if that's what you're worried about, opening the relay immediately is another safer choice.

[Ferretinabun]

What I'm worried about is taking down Sovereign (along with the army of geth it's brought along). Which, considering it's a complete unknown yet claims and appears to be vastly superior in terms of technology to anything we have, it a daunting propect. Will we need the entire fleet? Can we possibly do it on 66% strength? Who knows? Shepard certainly wouldn't. That's why it's a tough call and not a 'good v bad' choice.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

What I'm worried about is taking down Sovereign (along with the army of geth it's brought along). Which, considering it's a complete unknown yet claims and appears to be vastly superior in terms of technology to anything we have, it a daunting propect. Will we need the entire fleet? Can we possibly do it on 66% strength? Who knows? Shepard certainly wouldn't. That's why it's a tough call and not a 'good v bad' choice.

Can you do it without the Destiny Ascension?

If you really want the choice to be tough, it can be, but the results rather speak for themselves.

[Apple Lantern]

Make decisions harder? Sure. This? No.

You've got to remember that this is a video game. Something with all this sacrifice and hard thinking wouldn't be too enjoyable in the long run.

...Is this what Mass Effect would be if ME3's ending had been planned all along? Scary thought.

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

What I'm worried about is taking down Sovereign (along with the army of geth it's brought along). Which, considering it's a complete unknown yet claims and appears to be vastly superior in terms of technology to anything we have, it a daunting propect. Will we need the entire fleet? Can we possibly do it on 66% strength? Who knows? Shepard certainly wouldn't. That's why it's a tough call and not a 'good v bad' choice.

Can you do it without the Destiny Ascension?

If you really want the choice to be tough, it can be, but the results rather speak for themselves.

That is the conceit of hindsight. You are metagaming. You might as well role a dice and then afterwards crow about how 'It was obvious that the dice was going to roll a 5. Any idiot could have seen that."

Your two companions both make rather good points before you make the DA decision. Clearly you can prudently argue either way.

[KLGChaos]

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

Apparently, sadness and depression are the only emotions worth evoking in people. The feelings of happiness and triumph are only for the uneducated losers. <_<

In the end, ME was always a series about choices. True, some choices required sacrifice-- such as Kaiden or Ashley, Mordin or Wrex, etc. But not every choice (and especially the very end of a game) shouldn boil down to the same type of choices all with the same greyness, especially when you're given so much freedom to shape your character in the first place.

Cater to the black, the white and the grey. Then, there's something for everyone. Give people a way to get their perfect happy ending by having a few different (but difficult) ways to earn it without forcing them to role-play a certain way (which is a big no-no in an RPG). Have ways for them to fail if they don't make the right decisions, but don't make it so obvious like the suicide mission. Have real consequences to their actions-- for example, kill the Rachni Queen in ME1 and the rachni aren't there to save a squadmate in ME3. Make it so destroying both the Destiny Ascension and the Collector Base gets the Normandy destroyed because the big ship isn't there to defend it and you don't have the tech from the Base to fight the Reapers fully.

There were so many possibilities that were thrown out in favor of Starchild. So many decisions that could have factored into a real ending that meant absolutely nothing in the end.

I still say my favorite type of ending would have been have the Crucible be a weapon that just removes the Reaper's shielding (their main advantage), leaving them vulnerable. Then, after infiltrating and fighting your way through Harbinger's body (giving him a real purpose in the game), where decisions you made previously determine whether people live or die, whether races are able to survive or get so devestated they can't recover, and where your War Assests determine whether you can win the fight against the Reapers or lose horribly... or take the easy way out and take Control of the Reapers.

So much potential was wasted.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 13 mars 2013 - 03:10 .

[Gweedotk]

I happen to agree with OP, people became far too accustomed to everything going perfectly. It actually provides a good analytical model for why people responded as they had toward the endings- I'll give you props for that because I was quite shocked by the collective tantrum being thrown.

A good story-driven RPG not only gets one involved in the story, but forces one to make hard decisions as well. Those decisions easily reinforce ones emotional involvement in the plot. Besides that, the current story-model paints a ridiculously idealistic picture of military leadership. A good leader is forced to make hard decisions- more often than not, none of them will be "the right one."

Modifié par Gweedotk, 13 mars 2013 - 05:02 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

KLGChaos wrote...

Basically, what I'm seeing from this thread is that certain people want everything to be grey, grey, grey and choices are only meaningful if you feel like utter crap afterwards because you had to sacrifice something.

the entire point of the paragon/renegade system was that it was supposed to change the "good/evil" system from KoToR and earlier games into a real grey system where its not about being good, but about making difficult choices.  It wasnt until the third game where renegade started to mean "evil".  In ME1 renegade was still being good, but that you were more han solo about it rather than luke skywalker. 

paragon was right wing, renegade was left wing.  Neither were good or evil, it was just about making roleplaying feel a little more real and a little less binary.  thats why they were given seperate meters.  it was supposed to be a grey area, where you make decisions rather than say "I'm going to be a goodguy or a badguy".  People who werent paying attention to the first game leading up to launch or really knew the kinds of games bioware made before Mass Effect wont really get how significant it was that the morality system was set up this way.  Even the dialogue wheel was less about good and evil and more about laying out thought processes in a systematic way.  top is compassionate, bottom is pragmatic.  right side is more "kurt" and left is "diplomatic".  the idea of "boiling it down" to "good" and "evil" means the designers failed to uphold the founding principles of the PARAGON and RENEGADE system, or even that first game in general.

this was our launch trailer back before the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 04:39 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

no see a goodguy always saves the president, even if it means a million army guys get killed.  goodguys never save army guys thats not heroic.  :alien:

[Xilizhra]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

no see a goodguy always saves the president, even if it means a million army guys get killed.  goodguys never save army guys thats not heroic.  :alien:

You're being silly. There were ten thousand others aboard the DA; more lives were saved by protecting it than were lost from the Alliance fleet.

In any case, many Paragon decisions are pragmatic. What distinguishes most Renegade ones is that they're expedient.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 mars 2013 - 04:47 .

[Gweedotk]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

this was our launch trailer back before
the "ea-ification" of the series.  back when mass effect was being made
for scifi fans, not general audiences. 

notice
the tagline?  The phrase they were SELLING the game on?  Listen to the
distress call and pay attention to shepard's actions.  thats what the
first game was selling us, a grey area decision focused experience.

Something I had noticed as well. The first game came across as incomplete and I recall reading somewhere that it was "rushed." Something I would certainly blame EA for, among the attempt at appealing the mainstream rather than a select audience.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 13 mars 2013 - 04:57 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

You're forgetting the ten thousand people crewing the Destiny Ascension as well. There was little question about it being the right choice.

so the ten thousand people aboard those alliance frigates dont matter but the ten thousand people aboard the destiny ascension matter way more?

[Xilizhra]

so the ten thousand people aboard those alliance frigates dont matter but the ten thousand people aboard the destiny ascension matter way more?

There were only six thousand or so casualties from the Alliance fleet. That's a net gain of four thousand or so lives saved.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Nykara wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Would it be as crazy as the ending of ME1 where you're trying to figure out what you should do?

Save the Council...
There was no question...

There was actually, in saving the council how many other ships and lives where lost to save only a few lives? At the end of the day I am not entirely sure sacrificing those people to save the council was the right thing to do. Neither was leaving them behind, it was merely a choice that was neither good nor bad. It did however have a consiquence later by saving the council ships where lost as was war assets.

You're forgetting the ten thousand people crewing the Destiny Ascension as well. There was little question about it being the right choice.

I absolutely disagree. Your priority at the time was surely stopping the geth/Sovereign attack. And yet you are sacrificing a full third of your fleet, jepardising the entire battle, just to save your flagship.

Okay, as it turns out, it IS possible to save the Destiny Ascension AND repel the geth attack, but that's the virtue of hindsight. Without metagaming that's a very tough call, and neither is clearly the right/wrong decision.

Saren's dead, my countermeasure is in place, Sovereign is locked out of the Citadel. At this point, Sovereign's already lost without its final gambit of using Saren as an avatar (we can tell this because, given that this failing seemed to have either killed or mortally wounded Sovereign, it still had to have been a significantly better option than just hanging around trying to break into the Citadel; either the fleet was about to break through Sovereign's shields anyway and the strength of the Reapers was vastly overestimated, or it simply couldn't break through without inside assistance, and I find the latter more plausible).

uh you're wrong in a few places dude

There is no indication that sovereign has or is in jeopardy of sustaining ANY damage at the point where you kill saren and lock out the citadel.  Sovereign mind melds with saren to undo the lock, and when you kill that saren again it braindrains Sovereign and all his systems go down.  The only reason the normandy is able to blow him up is because his SHEILDS go down.  thats why he goes limp and lets go of the citadel.  Killing mindmeld saren allowed you to kill sovereign.  he wasnt "weakened by the battle" nothing in the cinematics and dialogue imply anything of the sort.  soverign just tore through the battle, even after you open the arms the fleet is all "Dude we're shooting sovereign a whole bunch but its not workin and we're kind of losing here"

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

so the ten thousand people aboard those alliance frigates dont matter but the ten thousand people aboard the destiny ascension matter way more?

There were only six thousand or so casualties from the Alliance fleet. That's a net gain of four thousand or so lives saved.

GREAT LETS START A TALLY BEFORE WE DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES.  MORE SURVIVORS MEANS MORE POINTS WHICH MEANS A HIGHER HERO SCORE  :happy::happy::happy::happy::happy::happy::happy::happy:

theres no question its obviously the right answer to pick the higher ratio to the lower one.  only an un-heroic idiot would pick the lower one.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 05:04 .