292 réponses à ce sujet

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

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?

In the current game, aa lot of the decisions are "Get useful upgrade v don't get useful upgrade."

This is a silly choice. It is practically a non-choice.

Under OP's suggested mechanics, it would be "Get useful upgrade v get squadmate X's loyalty".

This is far more interesting, meaningful and conducive to RP-ing.

[Ferretinabun]

dp

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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?

In the current game, aa lot of the decisions are "Get useful upgrade v don't get useful upgrade."

This is a silly choice. It is practically a non-choice.

Under OP's suggested mechanics, it would be "Get useful upgrade v get squadmate X's loyalty".

This is far more interesting, meaningful and conducive to RP-ing.

The upgrades aren't even intended to be a choice, they're intended to be a reward for being thorough. It was never supposed to have anything to do with roleplaying.

[David7204]

It's a far worse mechanic. And that was a pointless repetition. I'm perfectly aware of what the suggestion is.

Do you have an answer to my question?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

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?

thats tangental to the core arguement of this topic.  the topic argues that bioware catred to the player too much in me2 and most of me3 by sacrificing character integrity, and they paid for it in the end when they tried to make those people take the narrative seriously.  If they'd been treating every conflict throughout 2 and 3 with integrity of the virmire conflict people would have been far less ****y about "robot conflict?  I fixed that by picking top left" at the end of 3.


if han gerril had ignored shepard's words on rannoch and continued his assault it would have left players mad at the CHARACTER of han gerril, rather than at the narrative at the end of the game.  if that had happened then when the starchild says "Conflict will always exist" it would have been an observation of the PLAYER'S journey.  Backing down from making hard choices hard in 2 and parts of 3 is ultimately what bit bioware in the end because they created a false expectation by giving in most of the time.




I wonder how many people in this topic know which quarian admiral is even which.  its hilarious to me that most people cant even answer that.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 03:17 .

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

The upgrades aren't even intended to be a choice, they're intended to be a reward for being thorough. It was never supposed to have anything to do with roleplaying.

Regardless of what they were intended to be, don't you find OP's suggestions more intriguing?

[Xilizhra]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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?

thats tangental to the core arguement of this topic.  the topic argues
that bioware catred to the player too much in me2 and most of me3 by
sacrificing character integrity, and they paid for it in the end when
they tried to make those people take the narrative seriously.  If they'd
been treating every conflict throughout 2 and 3 with integrity of the
virmire conflict people would have been far less ****y about "robot
conflict?  I fixed that by picking top left" at the end of 3.


if
han gerril had ignored shepard's words on rannoch and continued his
assault it would have left players mad at the CHARACTER of han gerril,
rather than at the narrative at the end of the game.  if that had
happened then when the starchild says "Conflict will always exist" it
would have been an observation of the PLAYER'S journey.  Backing down
from making hard choices hard in 2 and parts of 3 is ultimately what bit
bioware in the end because they created a false expectation by giving
in most of the time.

Han'Gerrel's character wasn't butchered in ME3; he was always a hothead, but he wasn't so blindly hateful as to be immune to reason entirely.

Regardless of what they were intended to be, don't you find OP's suggestions more intriguing?

No, they're contrived and annoying. I don't even like there being a suicide mission in ME2; that mechanic should have been saved for ME3.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 mars 2013 - 03:17 .

[David7204]

No, it's completely central to the core argument. This argument rests on your claim that choices in Mass Effect are pointless. I'm challenging that. Can you give me a reason why significant numbers of players choose choices you claim are pointless and meaningless?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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?

thats tangental to the core arguement of this topic.  the topic argues
that bioware catred to the player too much in me2 and most of me3 by
sacrificing character integrity, and they paid for it in the end when
they tried to make those people take the narrative seriously.  If they'd
been treating every conflict throughout 2 and 3 with integrity of the
virmire conflict people would have been far less ****y about "robot
conflict?  I fixed that by picking top left" at the end of 3.


if
han gerril had ignored shepard's words on rannoch and continued his
assault it would have left players mad at the CHARACTER of han gerril,
rather than at the narrative at the end of the game.  if that had
happened then when the starchild says "Conflict will always exist" it
would have been an observation of the PLAYER'S journey.  Backing down
from making hard choices hard in 2 and parts of 3 is ultimately what bit
bioware in the end because they created a false expectation by giving
in most of the time.

Han'Gerrel's character wasn't butchered in ME3; he was always a hothead, but he wasn't so blindly hateful as to be immune to reason entirely.

then why was he unwilling to listen to tali zora, the daughter of his best childhood freind, yet when commander shepard makes THE SAME arguement he listens to him?


Why is shepard more important to han'gerrel than tali'zora?


see?  It completely shatters his character because they just inserted the shepard victory without rewriting anything else.  if it was possible to get han'gerrel to stop then it should have been TALI who convinced him.  when tali failed to convince him that was a statement on his resolve.  there is absolutely no reason why shepard is able to break that resolve when tali couldn't.  narratively you have to defer han'gerrel's personality for the sake of player choice to win, and thats terrible.

[Xilizhra]

then why was he unwilling to listen to tali zora, the daughter of his best childhood freind, yet when commander shepard makes THE SAME arguement he listens to him?


Why is shepard more important to han'gerrel than tali'zora?


see? It completely shatters his character because they just inserted the shepard victory without rewriting anything else. if it was possible to get han'gerrel to stop then it should have been TALI who convinced him. when tali failed to convince him that was a statement on his resolve. there is absolutely no reason why shepard is able to break that resolve when tali couldn't. narratively you have to defer han'gerrel's personality for the sake of player choice to win, and thats terrible.

It's because Tali, for some reason, doesn't actually explain that the geth are about to receive the Reaper code; it's not about Shepard as a person, it's about Shepard's explanation being better. This may not have been a great decision by the writers to have Tali not mention that, but the scene isn't about making Shepard to be overly godlike.

[David7204]

That is absolutely ridiculous. There is a very simple and obvious reason why Shepard convinced Gerrel - charisma. It matters. What you're implying is that just because people believe the same thing they should be able to present it exactly as well as one another. And that is completely stupid. 

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 03:24 .

[Ferretinabun]

[quote]David7204 wrote...

It's a far worse mechanic.[/quote]

Why is it?

Do you have an answer to my question? [/quote]

Because when you sell a gave to tens of thousands of people, not all of them are going to make the same decisions. That's a given.

That doesn't mean the options you gave them cannot be more morally balanced.

[Xilizhra]

David7204 wrote...

That is absolutely ridiculous. There is a very simple and obvious reason why Shepard convinced Gerrel - charisma. It matters. What you're implying is that just because people believe the same thing they should be able to present it exactly as well as one another. And that is completely stupid. 

That and Shepard actually gave vital information that Tali didn't. Of course, charisma does play a role, but it always has, if you remember being able to talk Saren to death.

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, they're contrived and annoying. I don't even like there being a suicide mission in ME2; that mechanic should have been saved for ME3.

Well to each his own, I suppose. I'm just surprised. Morally grey decision making is the reason I play Bioware RPGs.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No, they're contrived and annoying. I don't even like there being a suicide mission in ME2; that mechanic should have been saved for ME3.

Well to each his own, I suppose. I'm just surprised. Morally grey decision making is the reason I play Bioware RPGs.

There's a time and a place for that sort of thing. Specifically, when it can seem highly important to the rest of the universe but won't actually affect future games significantly, because choice imports really are rather problematic (as has been seen quite clearly). I believe in keeping the stories of all possible squadmates active (and am annoyed about Morinth's autodeath).

[chemiclord]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Well to each his own, I suppose. I'm just surprised. Morally grey decision making is the reason I play Bioware RPGs.

I'm not sure which games you've been playing... because every Bioware game I've played has been, "If you don't have a bright blue or blood red option to subvert the entire dilemma, you're doin' it rong."

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

No, it's completely central to the core argument. This argument rests on your claim that choices in Mass Effect are pointless. I'm challenging that. Can you give me a reason why significant numbers of players choose choices you claim are pointless and meaningless?

wow you're bad at understanding words.  Like when you thought Schlock was a typo for Shock.\\


this is a tangental arguement because its NOT the core.  You dont even have MY arguement right.  I was saying, in this tangent, that the choices were false choices.  the only reason people pick them is for fun after the fact.  the average player makes the same decision every time because its easy to get favorable outcomes to every hard choice because of the broken pursuade/intimidate system.  my arguement is false choice.  its not an actual decision, because there is no quandry to it.  "Do you want to poop or not poop?  If you dont poop you get the bad ending"  thats not the same thing as "Many choices await you, none of them easy."  When the choices dont request the player to debate the choice internally then they're not actual decisions.  theres no decision making if you already know what you're going to pick before the question even gets asked.


The ashley/kaiden choice was great because it subverted the player and asked them to come out of a no win scenario.  First step was to ask you to send someone with the salarians, what results of this from most players is they say "Oh its like the wrex situation where i got to choose if he lived or died?  Okay I'll send the character i hate with the salarians"  but then you end up having the other character stay behind to arm the bomb, while you continue on to save the other character and the salarians.  halfway through that trek shepard is forced to make a choice, but the thing that makes the choice interesting is that it becomes less about which character you like more, and about whether you feel like the life of the character you like more is more valuable than saving the salarians who are in trouble.  It becomes a choice of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and, in my case, ended with me saving a character i HATED because i would have felt like a scumbag leaving those salarians to die.  it was my choice and i spent a good long while debating it before i could pick.  it was real to me and i felt a true connection to the game in that moment.

when i quelled tali and legion's arguement i felt like i was just getting what i wanted and i spent no time making that decision.  it was ultimately less fullfilling in every way imaginable.

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

That is absolutely ridiculous. There is a very simple and obvious reason why Shepard convinced Gerrel - charisma. 

What is the difference, in this scenario, between charisma and just being a plain Mary Sue?

[GreyLycanTrope]

chemiclord wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Well to each his own, I suppose. I'm just surprised. Morally grey decision making is the reason I play Bioware RPGs.

I'm not sure which games you've been playing... because every Bioware game I've played has been, "If you don't have a bright blue or blood red option to subvert the entire dilemma, you're doin' it rong."

I don't remember Dragon Age having a morality meter.

[someguy1231]

David, I've been following this thread, and it sounds to me like you just want Shepard to be an incorruptible Mary Sue/Boring Invincible Hero. If the game clearly spells out which choices are "wrong" and which are "right", as well as the consequences of each, then it utterly ruins immersion and makes the whole choice mechanic pointless.

In real life, people have flaws. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. Even a man as revered as Mahatma Gandhi had racist beliefs when he was younger. Real life also has a thing called "unforeseen consequences". I know you're going to retort that games aren't "real life", but games will never be taken seriously if they don't tell realistic stories with realistic characters. No, I'm not asking for every character to be made into grimdark criminals. There's a vast gray middle between black and white, and that's where I think choice-based games should be.

[Xilizhra]

The ashley/kaiden choice was great because it subverted the player and asked them to come out of a no win scenario. First step was to ask you to send someone with the salarians, what results of this from most players is they say "Oh its like the wrex situation where i got to choose if he lived or died? Okay I'll send the character i hate with the salarians" but then you end up having the other character stay behind to arm the bomb, while you continue on to save the other character and the salarians. halfway through that trek shepard is forced to make a choice, but the thing that makes the choice interesting is that it becomes less about which character you like more, and about whether you feel like the life of the character you like more is more valuable than saving the salarians who are in trouble. It becomes a choice of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and, in my case, ended with me saving a character i HATED because i would have felt like a scumbag leaving those salarians to die. it was my choice and i spent a good long while debating it before i could pick. it was real to me and i felt a true connection to the game in that moment.

IIRC, you save the salarians regardless if you do all the optional objectives to sabotage the geth.

What is the difference, in this scenario, between charisma and just being a plain Mary Sue?

See my posts.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 mars 2013 - 03:35 .

[Ferretinabun]

chemiclord wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Well to each his own, I suppose. I'm just surprised. Morally grey decision making is the reason I play Bioware RPGs.

I'm not sure which games you've been playing... because every Bioware game I've played has been, "If you don't have a bright blue or blood red option to subvert the entire dilemma, you're doin' it rong."

In fairness, Dragon Age is better at it...

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Xilizhra wrote...

then why was he unwilling to listen to tali zora, the daughter of his best childhood freind, yet when commander shepard makes THE SAME arguement he listens to him?


Why is shepard more important to han'gerrel than tali'zora?


see? It completely shatters his character because they just inserted the shepard victory without rewriting anything else. if it was possible to get han'gerrel to stop then it should have been TALI who convinced him. when tali failed to convince him that was a statement on his resolve. there is absolutely no reason why shepard is able to break that resolve when tali couldn't. narratively you have to defer han'gerrel's personality for the sake of player choice to win, and thats terrible.

It's because Tali, for some reason, doesn't actually explain that the geth are about to receive the Reaper code; it's not about Shepard as a person, it's about Shepard's explanation being better. This may not have been a great decision by the writers to have Tali not mention that, but the scene isn't about making Shepard to be overly godlike.

Its still character death because now its tali who's suddenly really stupid for no reason.

David7204 wrote...

That is absolutely ridiculous. There is
a very simple and obvious reason why Shepard convinced Gerrel -
charisma. It matters. What you're implying is that just because people
believe the same thing they should be able to present it exactly as well
as one another. And that is completely stupid. 

you mean charisma POINTS.  its a game so if you have more points then you get to win.  thats all bioware has to do is reward you for having points.  get more points and you win the game.  didnt win?  get more points!

"well i was going to destroy the inactive geth and liberate my homeworld but since this guy is so cool i guess i'll believe coolguy shepard i hope he marries me afterwords"

[David7204]

You're wrong.

You are making up completely stupid, nonsense, garbage facts.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

the only reason people pick them is for fun after the fact.

That is garbage. It is garbage. The 'average player' picks paragon options because the 'average player' finds heroism to be a meaningful and fulfilling theme and outcome. But many players don't.

Is this how lousy your arguments are? That you have to completely make up nonsense to defend yourself? Plenty of people choose non-optimal choices for their canon playthoughs, and that's the end of it. You start any thread about Ashley or Kaidan and I can promise you there will be people posting about how happy they were to shoot them.

And you have to do it. You know why? Because you realize the same thing I do. - That you aren't acknowledging a facet of the choices. That there must be something else there, because if there wasn't nobody would pick them. But people do.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 03:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Its still character death because now its tali who's suddenly really stupid for no reason.

And such may be the case, but it has nothing to do with Shepard's choices being too powerful or whatever.