292 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

The fallacy here is the assumption that you can ever put 'real' work or 'real' intelligence into a video game. You can't. The only thing you can ever do is play it. A video game needs to be accessible, and it needs to be fun. You can't 'require' things from the player beyond very basic reasoning.

A video game like this can't require genuine suffering or genuine work. Because then it wouldn't be a game, would it? It would be work.

ME1 managed to put you in a no win scenario.  either save kaiden or ashley, sacrifice the alliance fleets or the destiny ascension...its not work.  the idea here is that the player would have to think about what they're doing more in me2 than they did, just like the ending of me1.  it wouldnt make it more work, it would just mean that certain playstyles end up with a more unique makeup at the end of the game.  

A renegade player would have a more powerful normandy, but samara, miranda, grunt, tali, garrus, and jacob wouldn't like them.  You could still get a perfect ending with that makeup, you'd just have to adjust your decisions.  An extreme paragon player would end up losing zaeed's loyalty, jack's loyalty, legion's loyalty, and mordin's loyalty.  they'd also lose jack, a tech expert, and thane, since they'd have a weaker ship.  That would be the primary difference in those two extremes.  Its still probably possible to eek out a full win with these suggestions, though.  (Basically the general idea would be renegade would end up with less loyalty, but more people alive, while paragon would lose people but have stronger connections, with a middleground inbetween)


anyways the core of this idea came from the genesis 2 comic curiously putting a decision to "Do loyalty missions OR save the crew"  without an option to do both.  thats such an interesting idea that it seems like something bioware was kicking themselves with for not having capitalized on.  The rest of my specifics are just fleshing out elements that are already there, or were almost there, and applying extremes.  turning the loyalty mechanic into an actual mechanic, where you can get it all but only if you know what you're doing.  (The idea of being a little paragade to get jack into me3 sits well with me, since she's a little renegon in 3 herself)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 12:52 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Rulid wrote...

I completely agree with the OP.

In fact, Bioware should have dropped the so-called "thousands of variables" from the get go and simply diverged at major points.

In fact there was no either/or situation like the Virmire Survivor since ME1.
You should really have absolute polar contrasts of crew members weighing in on variables and then Bioware might actually have had a significant amount of variation in their endings.

Quarian-Geth, Genophage-KroganExplosion, Rachni-orNot, Cerberus-orNot
Just even factoring these four variables would actually lead to at least 16 different endings
with an added flavor of suicide mission survivals.

As the OP stated, the whole Geth-Quarian peace situation is akin to choosing Ashley but
picking up Kaiden on a flyby. That's stupid.

Anyway. Big thumbs up to OP.

if bioware would have taken out the variables, it would have degenerated into a pseudo-rgp, where the rpg aspects dont have any weight.

why have different dialogue options, if the results are the same?


mass effect is intersting because of its variations. "all roads lead to rome." it is intersting to get the same results using different directions - if you want to. mass effect has the ability to make every playthrough individual - this makes this game series strong.

every game can have the same outcome but with a different route. or a different outcome despite taking the same route. this adds replayability.

taking out the variables, would turn mass effect into a shooter with too much dialogue.

[David7204]

For decisions to be meaningful, 'good' choices generally need to lead to 'good' outcomes and vice-versa.

[Big Bad]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The fallacy here is the assumption that you can ever put 'real' work or 'real' intelligence into a video game. You can't. The only thing you can ever do is play it. A video game needs to be accessible, and it needs to be fun. You can't 'require' things from the player beyond very basic reasoning.

A video game like this can't require genuine suffering or genuine work. Because then it wouldn't be a game, would it? It would be work.

ME1 managed to put you in a no win scenario.  either save kaiden or ashley, sacrifice the alliance fleets or the destiny ascension...its not work.  the idea here is that the player would have to think about what they're doing more in me2 than they did, just like the ending of me1.  it wouldnt make it more work, it would just mean that certain playstyles end up with a more unique makeup at the end of the game.  

A renegade player would have a more powerful normandy, but samara, miranda, grunt, tali, garrus, and jacob wouldn't like them.  You could still get a perfect ending with that makeup, you'd just have to adjust your decisions.  An extreme paragon player would end up losing zaeed's loyalty, jack's loyalty, legion's loyalty, and mordin's loyalty.  they'd also lose jack, a tech expert, and thane, since they'd have a weaker ship.  That would be the primary difference in those two extremes.  Its still probably possible to eek out a full win with these suggestions, though.  (Basically the general idea would be renegade would end up with less loyalty, but more people alive, while paragon would lose people but have stronger connections, with a middleground inbetween)

I like this.  Inability to "do it all" with one character gives the game more replay value and gives you incentives to try thing differently next time.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

For decisions to be meaningful, 'good' choices generally need to lead to 'good' outcomes and vice-versa.

What did you think of the Javik decision in ME3, between giving him the shard and keeping it from him?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

For decisions to be meaningful, 'good' choices generally need to lead to 'good' outcomes and vice-versa.

How does that make them meaningful?  You're only looking at one side of it.  Why would anyone ever pick the other choice?  In ME2 no one picked the other choice because there was no reason to.  most of those choices might as well have been automatic.  

Everyone got every loyalty, saved everyone, and did all the right things, and they didnt even have to choose dialogue, they just automatically went top left or bottom left and everything turns out perfect.  Why not just enable autodialogue if thats all it ammounts to? 

ME2 became a paragon/renegade point grindfest, where most players didnt even look at the rest of the wheel because they wanted to get their number to be the best number they could. 

Because of this, NOTHING was meaningful because the choices didnt MEAN anything.  They're as meaningless as the "I'm not going to do your quest" option that was in every dialogue in ME1.  The failings of the dialogue and morality systems in ME2 was a common complaint.  it felt less like an rpg because you didnt have to make as many decisions, every decision was practically made for you.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 12:58 .

[goose2989]

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way. And that's exactly what this is.

The conflicts and the story are better for Shepard being a hero. Not worse.

You need to make another "hero" argument on this thread. Too many people are obsessed with "gray" morality and forcing choices for the sake of forcing choices. 

[David7204]

I don't much like Javik. I think him being at peace is much better then him trying be a king on Kahje.

[NCommand]

I think it's important to be clear that this shouldn't rule out "good" outcomes, it's just important that developers remember that even as a hero the player has to be smacked in the head and reminded here an there that sometimes choices must be made, and sometimes no choice can make everyone happy

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

NCommand wrote...

I think it's important to be clear that this shouldn't rule out "good" outcomes, it's just important that developers remember that even as a hero the player has to be smacked in the head and reminded here an there that sometimes choices must be made, and sometimes no choice can make everyone happy

Yeah as I said, perfect outcome would still be achievable, but it would give the average player more variance in their playthrough.  the gamer obsessed with the perfect playthrough could read up and learn what choices have the best outcome, get lucky, or play it multiple times.  The average player would end up with a crazier, more memorable suicide mission and, as a result, an ME3 more unique to each player, rather than everyone coming in with more or less the same choices.

[David7204]

Providing choices in games is not about replay value or differing outcomes.

It's about giving the player a sense that he has a meaningful impact on the story and characters. That is a million times more satisfying and more important.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 01:02 .

[Kel Riever]

Player control, no player control. Either way, the ending(s) were a poor excuse for someone who gets paid to do anything for a living.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Providing choices in games is not about replay value or differing outcomes.

It's about giving the player a sense that he has a meaningful impact on the story and characters. That is a million times more satisfying and more important.

Actually, it's about both.

[goose2989]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Providing choices in games is not about replay value or differing outcomes.

It's about giving the player a sense that he has a meaningful impact on the story and characters. That is a million times more satisfying and more important.

Actually, it's about both.

True, but the sense of impacting the world is drastically more important than simple replay value. I have replayed Mass Effect 2 probably more than a dozen times, and yet I essentially play the same type of Shepard each time; a paragon that romances Tali. The chance to have different outcomes in the game does little to get me to replay the game. It's instead the feeling I have each time that I actually can help the characters I care about

[crimzontearz]

no thanks

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

Providing choices in games is not about replay value or differing outcomes.

Yes they are.

The writer(s) could just as well make a linear, choice-free game and still give the impression of the player making a difference.

The entire idea behind a choice is that option A leads to a certain outcome, and option B leads to another. That's why they're called choices. Differing outcomes offers an incentive to th player to replay segments of the game to make different choices and see how events unfold.

[Spartas Husky]

Is called a product. Long enough the game industry has been hiding under a child's toy to be accepted as is whatever the quality. Whenever it suits them they call it art.

Problem is, is a product, like any other, it is being payed, and a game as in depth as Mass effect draws in more than the a toddler with a pacifier.

Picture the movie avengers... you can make ungodly profit if you stick to your base and nurture it for a long time.

COD is a good example, it appeals to those who just want to blow off steam dont want to think or be engaged just want to shoot stuff. From young to old, is all about the multiplayer.

The majority of the base for this series are those who ar enot satisfied simply by the pretty color explosion chain every two seconds. They like engagement, character development, indepth plausible description of technology and events. Like Star Strek etc, talky techy as some call it.

[Dr_Extrem]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

NCommand wrote...

I think it's important to be clear that this shouldn't rule out "good" outcomes, it's just important that developers remember that even as a hero the player has to be smacked in the head and reminded here an there that sometimes choices must be made, and sometimes no choice can make everyone happy

Yeah as I said, perfect outcome would still be achievable, but it would give the average player more variance in their playthrough.  the gamer obsessed with the perfect playthrough could read up and learn what choices have the best outcome, get lucky, or play it multiple times.  The average player would end up with a crazier, more memorable suicide mission and, as a result, an ME3 more unique to each player, rather than everyone coming in with more or less the same choices.

the problem is, that even a player with the most crazy suicide mission, ends up with the same end-choices everyone else has.


your me2-scenario in example, would only enable 2 average endings.

either you get a good normandy, everybody survives but it does not matter, because they dont like you (btw - jack would love a renegade shepard).
or, you cant upgrade the normandy, half the crew dies but the ones who survive are loyal ...

paragon and renegade never changed the outcomes (except the control speech) - they only were different tastes on how to achieve the outcome. a renegade character can destroy the collector base and a paragon can keep it.

in your version, a paragon player could be forced to go renegade, because he wants jack to survive. forcing a player ooc in a rpg is bad.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 13 mars 2013 - 01:14 .

[goose2989]

I do agree somewhat with you, OP. Giving too much control over the game's outcome can be a bad thing. I viewed the decision on Rannoch as completely unnecessary. I don't for one second think that Shepard should be deciding the fate of an entire species. It was merely a ham-fisted attempt by the writing staff to give a big, grandiose choice to the player. I don't think Shepard should be deciding the fate of a race on such a large scale.

If anything, I think the final decision on Rannoch should have more simply been "which faction do you want to support?" if you can't broker peace between them. Let's say I chose the Quarians, then the Geth would be forced to leave the planet for good and find a new home. The same applies vice-versa. It would have been just as meaning, but also would seem like a choice Shepard should actually make.

[crimzontearz]

also....if ME3 ended up giving me less control I would rather play a straight up shooter with RPG mechanics like Crysis

there are reasons why I play Mass effect, the fact that this is MY story too and I have a high degree of control are two of them

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

When tali and legion gave in after shepard yelled at them it devalued those characters for me. Tali just goes "well maybe if i give you a little public domain data i wont feel bad" and legion goes "youve both sidelined the reason for my scanning of the flotilla and apparently outsmarted me so i accept anything because im a dumb robot" what was the point of legion trying to gain valuable information on the flotilla if two people yelling at him is enough to make him accept invaluable information? It just calls talis loyalty to her people into question and makes legion seem like an idiot who doesnt know what he's doing. Thats why it didnt sit well with me.

But i guess as long as shepard looks like a coolguy then it doesnt matter how retarded everyone else has to be to make it work.


"hey fleet admirals i know that you have alot of stake in this trial and its hella complicated but if you can just give up because i said so thatd be great."  "well you did ask nicely so okay"  "no he didnt he yelled at us and devalued our entire governmental system"  "yeah but he did it with a super high renegade score so we have to do what he says its the rules."  ((((

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[Rulid]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Rulid wrote...

taking out the variables, would turn mass effect into a shooter with too much dialogue.

But let's take a retrospective of the current outcome of ME3.

The dialogue variables hardly weigh in at all. 
I'm aware that being rude or not to Conrad will end up adding a few points to your War Score, but that also belies what I have claimed as well. Does it matter?

In the end Bioware gave us three options that were dependent on the last five minutes with minor variations depending on dialogue choices.

Schematic Current:    [ME1: -------]  x [ME2:-------] x [ME3:--------3]  = --------3--------  
                         (-: minor variations, numerals: major variations)

What I believe would have been better was if bioware had given us a dozen more endings that diverged much earlier in the game and have minor variations depending on dialogue choices.

Schematic Proposed:   [ME1:-2-2] x [ME2:-2-2] x [ME3: -2-2] = ---32---- 
                         (Results: Less minor variations, more major variations)

[Dr_Extrem]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

When tali and legion gave in after shepard yelled at them it devalued those characters for me. Tali just goes "well maybe if i give you a little public domain data i wont feel bad" and legion goes "youve both sidelined the reason for my scanning of the flotilla and apparently outsmarted me so i accept anything because im a dumb robot" what was the point of legion trying to gain valuable information on the flotilla if two people yelling at him is enough to make him accept invaluable information? It just calls talis loyalty to her people into question and makes legion seem like an idiot who doesnt know what he's doing. Thats why it didnt sit well with me.

i think you misinterpret the gesture of tali.

by freely giving legion data (even if it is non classified), she shows trust and the will to back down.

legion accepts the data to show, that there is no ill will left.


this is a classic compromise and a foundation for future trust. thats what diplomatic people do - they broker compromises.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

NCommand wrote...

I think it's important to be clear that this shouldn't rule out "good" outcomes, it's just important that developers remember that even as a hero the player has to be smacked in the head and reminded here an there that sometimes choices must be made, and sometimes no choice can make everyone happy

Yeah as I said, perfect outcome would still be achievable, but it would give the average player more variance in their playthrough.  the gamer obsessed with the perfect playthrough could read up and learn what choices have the best outcome, get lucky, or play it multiple times.  The average player would end up with a crazier, more memorable suicide mission and, as a result, an ME3 more unique to each player, rather than everyone coming in with more or less the same choices.

Thats not really what i meant i was just providing an example.  Divorcing it from paragon and renegade points it would be more like DA:O's approval system, where you still make big decisions but people will get upset with you, and that game is celebrated as one of bioware's best.


Besides, did you REALLY not scratch your head when upgrading the cannons was as simple as asking garrus to pull better cannons out of his pocket?  There was nothing to how they handled the ship upgrades in two it was almost a non element.  The rest of it was just making supporting characters really dumb if shepard yelled at them and not having anything interesting happen with your loyalty system.
the problem is, that even a player with the most crazy suicide mission, ends up with the same end-choices everyone else has.


your me2-scenario in example, would only enable 2 average endings.

either you get a good normandy, everybody survives but it does not matter, because they dont like you (btw - jack would love a renegade shepard).
or, you cant upgrade the normandy, half the crew dies but the ones who survive are loyal ...

paragon and renegade never changed the outcomes (except the control speech) - they only were different tastes on how to achieve the outcome. a renegade character can destroy the collector base and a paragon can keep it.

in your version, a paragon player could be forced to go renegade, because he wants jack to survive. forcing a player ooc in a rpg is bad.

[Dr_Extrem]

Rulid wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Rulid wrote...

taking out the variables, would turn mass effect into a shooter with too much dialogue.

But let's take a retrospective of the current outcome of ME3.

The dialogue variables hardly weigh in at all. 
I'm aware that being rude or not to Conrad will end up adding a few points to your War Score, but that also belies what I have claimed as well. Does it matter?

In the end Bioware gave us three options that were dependent on the last five minutes with minor variations depending on dialogue choices.

Schematic Current:    [ME1: -------]  x [ME2:-------] x [ME3:--------3]  = --------3--------  
                         (-: minor variations, numerals: major variations)

What I believe would have been better was if bioware had given us a dozen more endings that diverged much earlier in the game and have minor variations depending on dialogue choices.

Schematic Proposed:   [ME1:-2-2] x [ME2:-2-2] x [ME3: -2-2] = ---32---- 
                         (Results: Less minor variations, more major variations)

thats more the fault of the endings - not the series.


a different design could have reflected shepards choices on a personal level. i would have chosen this design.

imagine an ending, where the galactic outcome is always more or less the same - the reapers get destroyed.
but shepards personal fate and some details are determined by shepards previous actions.
- shepard has a loyal crew, he/she is more likely to survive, because more people come to find the lost hero.
- shepard can gain the loyalty of certain factions, by curing the genophage, borkering peace, doing loyalty missions ect.
- shepard completed certain sidemissions, edi and the geth do not die (or they do - depending on the outcome of the missions)
- shepards personal epilogue could also reflect former decisions - like helping feros.