292 réponses à ce sujet

[goose2989]

o Ventus wrote...

Wait a minute here.

My ME1 isn't riddled with "difficult" decisions. In fact, the majority of "difficult" decisions can be bypassed in some form in my games.

How does ME1 strike a perfect balance between choice contrivance and player freedom?

You're right, it doesn't

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

No, continually having negative consequences result from 'good' choices is mindless shock.

Who decides what's good and bad?

[David7204]

I'll happily take that responsibility. But there's also a very strong consensus that compassion, honor, and friendship are 'good,' and selfishness, cruelty, and pettiness are 'bad.' I'm pretty much in tune with it.

[Ferretinabun]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

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.

This. Very much this.

The more difficult choices OP is suggesting would make Shepard's choices MORE meaningful, not less.

Frankly I'm surprised at the number of people who just want to be a hero and have every presented problem melt away in their presence instead of being driven into making tough, story-impacting choices. I thought that was what RPGs were supposed to be about?

That said, I suspect OP's ideas are a little strict. Haven't done the maths, but I think saving everyone would indeed be impossible. But I get the idea, and I very much approve.

[Bill Casey]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Frankly I'm surprised at the number of people who just want to be a hero and have every presented problem melt away in their presence instead of being driven into making tough, story-impacting choices. I thought that was what RPGs were supposed to be about?

This forum has shown you it's full of people ready to believe in good...
Mass Effect was about the choice between being a dick or a generally decent human being...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mars 2013 - 02:30 .

[David7204]

Any idiot can write choices with big impacts on the story. That's easy. That's nothing.

What's difficult is making choices with meaningful consequences. And a dice roll is not meaningful. 

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 02:32 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Why bother with choices then? It's a point that's already been made, but if good choices overwhelmingly lead to good outcomes, and having different outcomes is secondary to this, what's the point in role playing if there's only one role allowed?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 mars 2013 - 02:39 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...]

well scanning the omni tool in the frst place is not very mature. this could end in the airlock.


imo, its a question of perspective ... we have a different one.

Yes, my perspective is looking at the characters motivation and you cant see past surface level actions.  The characters arent real to you, you just like it that shepard gets his way, despite how  out of character everyone arround him has to be to make this happen.

It disaoles the legitimacy of the narrative and turns it into mindless shlock.  Telling them to cool it ahould have had consiquence, because the problem was still there you were just pulling a rug over it.  "be nice, children, or im going to get my belt"  

ok .. this exchange is over .. the moment you try to insult my intelligence, i am out.

the motivation of the characters is dumb in the first place. legion scans talis omni tool - he has to know, that she will notice.

you say i cant see past surface actions - you cant see the moral of the story and its educative notion.

"See kids?  Today shepard proved that if you share you can make freinds with anyone, even a robot!  All you have to do is be like tali and legion.  until next time, mass effect-erinos!!"

legion was clumsy, but he wasnt dumb, he was trying to protect his people.  tali and legion learning the lesson of friendship and having a singalong doesnt change the fact that the quarian admirals are gearing up for war with the geth.

[Ferretinabun]

Bill Casey wrote...
This forum has shown you it's full of people ready to believe in good...

What does that mean, exactly? The Paragon/Renegade 'immediately solve all problems' options were effectively get-out options. How is that 'good'?

Mass Effect was about the choice between being a dick or a generally decent human being...

Was it? Wasn't it about being a 3D character with actual opinions about such issues as the genophage, VI rights, and Cerberus? Would you reduce these issues to having merely 'right and wrong' opinions?

Modifié par Ferretinabun, 13 mars 2013 - 02:42 .

[David7204]

Because you don't have to like heroism. If you hate your squadmates and want them to suffer, you can do that. If you think human dominance is peaches and cream, you can do that. If you think being a jerk is the coolest thing ever, you can do that. It's just that the story needs to reflect those choices appropriately, by not leading to heroic outcomes.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 02:44 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

goose2989 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Wait a minute here.

My ME1 isn't riddled with "difficult" decisions. In fact, the majority of "difficult" decisions can be bypassed in some form in my games.

How does ME1 strike a perfect balance between choice contrivance and player freedom?

You're right, it doesn't

it doesnt have very many, but the ones it has are successful, and end up being the ones that everyone goes back to talking about.



also, the pitch behind paragon and renegade wasn't "Good vs Evil"  Paragon is Spock, Renegade is Kirk.  Kirk isnt evil and spock isnt "always good", its just a set of principles.  paragon is idealism, while renegade is pragmatism.  thats not good and evil and its ****ty that ME2 boiled it down to a simplistic kotor style morality.  :/

[David7204]

Except that's wrong. The Paragon options are usually very pragmatic, and the Renegade options are often pointlessly cruel or petty. As it should be.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 02:46 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Any idiot can write choices with big impacts on the story. That's easy. That's nothing.

What's difficult is making choices with meaningful consequences. And a dice roll is not meaningful. 

none of the suggestions in my OP are dice rolls they are all easily communicated and constant.

making every choice have an obvious "positive" and obvious "negative" renders them meaningless.  All you're doing is putting an "i win" button in every cutscene (top left bottom left)  theres no consiquence and theres no choice.  the only thing that matters is making sure you're grinding your morality score up to 5 bars.

[David7204]

Is that right? Tell me something. Why do some people on the BSN and elsewhere advocate Renegade choices at all, then? If they're completely pointless then obviously nobody would canonically pick them, right? And yet, people obviously do.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 02:52 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Because you don't have to like heroism. If you hate your squadmates and want them to suffer, you can do that. If you think human dominance is peaches and cream, you can do that. If you think being a jerk is the coolest thing ever, you can do that. It's just that the story needs to reflect those choices appropriately, by not leading to heroic outcomes.

no one choses those their first time through and your arguement couldnt be a more thinly veiled biased.  all you're saying is that "bad people should be punished for being bad"  thats what elmentary school is about.  in the real world 90% of the people arent going to be good or bad, but they're going to have differing views that dont allow comprimise.  in order for a character to feel real they have to stick to their convictions, not sideline them because focus tests asked for a third "have your cake and eat it too" option.

[David7204]

That is complete nonsense. I've been on this forum a year, and I've heard a great deal of people advocate various 'Renegade' options. Advocate killing the geth, advocate stomping out the krogan, advocate killing Ashley or Kaidan. The list goes on. Plenty of people do it. And not just to see what happens - they do it with 'canon' playthroughs.

You claim these decisions are pointless. That nobody has any reason to pick them. Yet clearly people pick them nonetheless. Why?

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 02:56 .

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

Is that right? Tell me something. Why do some people on the BSN and elsewhere advocate Renegade choices at all, then? If they're completely pointless then obviously nobody would canonically pick them, right? And yet, people obviously do.

I think you misunderstand. Paragon and Renegade are both 'I win' buttons. They achieve the same end - conflict is automatically resolved to everyone's satisfaction. They are just different way of achieving the same end.

But how often do people, when presented with either a paragon or renegade option, not take them?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Is that right? Tell me something. Why do some people on the BSN and elsewhere advocate Renegade choices at all, then? If they're completely pointless then obviously nobody would canonically pick them, right? And yet, people obviously do.

because intimidate options in the game are as much a get out of jail free card for renegades as pursuation is for paragons.  none of ME2's bottom left choices are "bad" they're just "coolguy versions of the top left ones".  theres no choice you're just grinding out a morality score.  me2 is a game with choices but it discourages you from making choices by constantly giving you a bypass option.  it effectively renders the entire morality system pointless.  no one actually goes into me2 saying "i want to kill all my friends" the first time through, and thats not what the renegade system they set up IS.
they arent good and evil, the game makes a good thing happen as long as you pick left options, even if it means making shepard saying "stop fighting the geth i'm super serious guys" somehow different from tali and koris saying the exact same thing.  if anything shepard's words should have carried LESS weight.  why the hell would han gerril listen to a human when he wouldnt even listen to his fellow admirals?  It makes no sense what happens on rannoch.  han gerril's personality "Goes away" so you can have a happy ending.  its character murder.

[David7204]

Uh, no. I've seen a fair amount of people advocating killing the geth. Not using the Intimidate option. Killing them. Choosing the quarians. Killing the geth. Same thing for a few people killing the quarians. They get less war assets, and they do it anyway.

Plenty of people advocating killing Ashley or Kaidan. Not intimidating their way out of it. Killing them. They get less assets or less content, and they do it anyway.

Plenty of people talking gleefully about how much they'd love to kill Liara or James or EDI. Seems pointless, but enough people wanting it anyway. It seems there's less after the recent DLC, thankfully.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 03:01 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

That is complete nonsense. I've been on this forum a year, and I've heard a great deal of people advocate various 'Renegade' options. Advocate killing the geth, advocate stomping out the krogan, advocate killing Ashley or Kaidan. The list goes on. Plenty of people do it. And not just to see what happens - they do it with 'canon' playthroughs.

You claim these decisions are pointless. That nobody has any reason to pick them. Yet clearly people pick them nonetheless. Why?

the point isnt what a subset decides to do, its about how the game accidentally ended up training players to pick the same options for 90% of playthroughs, a game that was INTENDED to spur conversation and debate over how missions turned out ended up with a massive skew on almost every choice in the game.  The Walking Dead's writers call anything with a 70% or higher split a "failure" because it means they didnt do a good job as writers to craft an interesting decision.

[Dr_Extrem]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...]

well scanning the omni tool in the frst place is not very mature. this could end in the airlock.


imo, its a question of perspective ... we have a different one.

Yes, my perspective is looking at the characters motivation and you cant see past surface level actions.  The characters arent real to you, you just like it that shepard gets his way, despite how  out of character everyone arround him has to be to make this happen.

It disaoles the legitimacy of the narrative and turns it into mindless shlock.  Telling them to cool it ahould have had consiquence, because the problem was still there you were just pulling a rug over it.  "be nice, children, or im going to get my belt"  

ok .. this exchange is over .. the moment you try to insult my intelligence, i am out.

the motivation of the characters is dumb in the first place. legion scans talis omni tool - he has to know, that she will notice.

you say i cant see past surface actions - you cant see the moral of the story and its educative notion.

"See kids?  Today shepard proved that if you share you can make freinds with anyone, even a robot!  All you have to do is be like tali and legion.  until next time, mass effect-erinos!!"

legion was clumsy, but he wasnt dumb, he was trying to protect his people.  tali and legion learning the lesson of friendship and having a singalong doesnt change the fact that the quarian admirals are gearing up for war with the geth.

and tali does not agree with the admirals. legion could have asked shepard to act as a mediator. legions motives are justified but his actions are not.


what about shepards motivation?

shep wants to go on a very dangerrous mission and the last thing he/she needs, is distrust among his own people. shepard brokers a compromise, to make sure, that both legion and tali can work together on the mission.

[chemiclord]

I'd honestly argue that the games DON'T give you much control at all... just the ILLUSION of it... which is why ME3 frustrated so many people, because that illusion was shattered at the very end.

Ask yourself, looking at all the "choices" you have in all three games, how many carry over from game to game? How many of them actually change the events or circumstances over the course of the trilogy?

The council decision is a aesthetic difference only. It's basically the same council reskinned and the personalities swapped around. What does your decision in the collector base actually do?  Something slightly less than jack ****.

Hell, ask yourself how the choices you make within each game actually changes the events and circumstances of that game. I think you'd discover the answer to be abysmally few. Hell, a lot of your "choices" in ME1 don't even alter THAT VERY CONVERSATION.

Do your choices in ME1 open up anything at the end? Nope.

Do your choices in ME2 give you anything special in that final decision? Nope.

Do your choices in ME3... ah hell, everyone knows the answer to that one already. The only thing they don't seem to get is that it's ALWAYS been that way, right from the start.

Modifié par chemiclord, 13 mars 2013 - 03:03 .

[David7204]

There's a very important point in what a subset decides to do. You've told me that picking anything but the 'best' option is 'pointless' and 'meaningless' in Mass Effect, and yet plenty of players have picked other options and defended them here. So why would they do that if its pointless and meaningless?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...]

well scanning the omni tool in the frst place is not very mature. this could end in the airlock.


imo, its a question of perspective ... we have a different one.

Yes, my perspective is looking at the characters motivation and you cant see past surface level actions.  The characters arent real to you, you just like it that shepard gets his way, despite how  out of character everyone arround him has to be to make this happen.

It disaoles the legitimacy of the narrative and turns it into mindless shlock.  Telling them to cool it ahould have had consiquence, because the problem was still there you were just pulling a rug over it.  "be nice, children, or im going to get my belt"  

ok .. this exchange is over .. the moment you try to insult my intelligence, i am out.

the motivation of the characters is dumb in the first place. legion scans talis omni tool - he has to know, that she will notice.

you say i cant see past surface actions - you cant see the moral of the story and its educative notion.

"See kids?  Today shepard proved that if you share you can make freinds with anyone, even a robot!  All you have to do is be like tali and legion.  until next time, mass effect-erinos!!"

legion was clumsy, but he wasnt dumb, he was trying to protect his people.  tali and legion learning the lesson of friendship and having a singalong doesnt change the fact that the quarian admirals are gearing up for war with the geth.

and tali does not agree with the admirals. legion could have asked shepard to act as a mediator. legions motives are justified but his actions are not.


what about shepards motivation?

shep wants to go on a very dangerrous mission and the last thing he/she needs, is distrust among his own people. shepard brokers a compromise, to make sure, that both legion and tali can work together on the mission.

And how does shepard accomplish that?  By Legion deciding NOT to care about these crazed admirals trying to kill his people.

it doesnt address his character.  All he says is "Shepard!"  and then shepard says "No!"  and he goes "Okay you dont have to shout gaw"  its undermining to his character.  It treats him like a child and i ****kin hate it.

[Xilizhra]

I believe that the level of choice was just about perfect throughout all three games. I also believe that the choice between Ashley and Kaidan was less about a difficult choice, and more about eliminating a redundant character, as both of them were Alliance marines who'd fill the same role later on. I'd be far more irritated with that decision if the people under threat weren't redundant.