307 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

Bleachrude wrote...

As for the sales figure, we have no idea just how much of that was actual profit and how much had to cover costs..so you can't use THAT figure to get a percentage of how "expensive" patching is.

Well, we do have some idea. SWTOR may have been the most expensive game ever made, and the estimates of the costs of developing and marketing it vary from a couple of hundred millions up to half a billion. ME3 is clearly a much cheaper project, so it wouldn't seem unreasonable to estimate the costs well below the nine figure line, which would still mean profits of over $100 mil for the "launch window". 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 02:14 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

iakus wrote...
I also attribute it to the general shortening of rpgs in general.  Truly massive rpgs like the Baldur's Gate games, where completionist runs can take 50 hours or more are now extremely rare without a full DLC cycle behind it (and not even then much of the time)  They feel incomplete because they take such a short time to finish.

I actually think the length of the Mass Effect games is about right (generally somewhere between 20 and 40 hours for me), because it allows more opportunity to replay them and try different options. I've been playing The Witcher on and off since January and mostly liking it, but it's not one of my very favorite games, and as a result I doubt I'll go back and play it again just because it would take so much time.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

It sounds like you want Paragons to be right; idealism will give results every bit as good as more pragmatic approaches. Am I reading this right?

The implication I'm getting here is that if Renegade doesn't provide demonstrably better results, then Paragon is automatically better. If indeed this is true, then it's always been true in the series, and if it's a flaw that Paragon is too highly touted during the entire series, then it's a flaw that should have remained until the end. Otherwise, you've suddenly reversed things on Paragons - the majority of the playerbase - at the last second when they are least expecting it. Whether or not more balance was needed between P and R, waiting until the last decision to implement this balance is poor planning. This is why I said I would have preferred for a decision of this type to wait until ME4 where BW could have discarded the P/R system altogether. Then you have a consistent moral system in your game and the expectations of the player are clear from the beginning.

Still, it's not necessarily true that if P/R consequences are equal then Paragon is automatically better.  Rannoch is a good example where P/R checks were merely used to provide different paths to the same end. It doesn't make sense to say that the Paragon path is better than the Renegade path on Rannoch, right? The difference is largely in the personality of the character.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which is kind of a problem for the design. Most of the time the Renegade path is wrong on its own terms. It isn't pragmatic to do the pragmatic thing when the idealistic path gets all the rewards of the pragmatic path and more besides. Feros is particularly awful in this regard since the Paragon path isn't only better, it's easier.

Of course, this isn't ME- or even Bioware-specific.

This is worth responding to as well since it ties with my previous post, but in essence if you fix this favoritism of Paragons at the very end of the third game, then what you have done is sacrifice consistency for balance.

But have we really achieved balance in the current endings, P/R wise? Is it accurate to say that in these endings, the Paragon path and Renegade path are balanced because the Renegade path has slightly better consequences?

Not really, in my mind, because what is at stake for Paragons in the current endings is not merely a difference of consequence but a refutal of the core of Paragon thinking.  It's possible for Paragon path to have slightly worse consequences than Renegade and still be acceptable to Paragons (or to this Paragon at least) depending on the nature of the consequences. But the current endings are not so much a balance of "Renegade = better consequences while Paragon = more noble",  as "Renegade options are the only way to win the war, while the only true Paragon choice (Refuse) leads to defeat".

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 avril 2013 - 04:09 .

[AlanC9]

[quote]Fixers0 wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
I don't think it would have strengthened ME3's narrative, because that narrative isn't about Shepard needing to justify his previous choices to anybody..[/quote]
You're Wrong, the trial is exactcly about Shepard having the justify for previous choices, why was he/she locked up in the first place then? saying that it doesn't matter because of the Reaper's arriving is an arugment after the fact and as such isn't appliable here. after going an entire game of the rails by working freelance for a terrorist organisation taking responsabilty and is exactly what the narrative needs.[/quote]

A pointless trial with no consequences is what the narrative needs?

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
I think it would have flopped dramatically, and I think that's why Bio killed it.[/quote]

Not without the understanding that this all purely conjecture.[/quote]

Fair enough. All I'm entitled to say there is that every proposal I've ever seen for the trial would have flopped as drama.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
A pointless trial with no consequences is what the narrative needs?

Well thanks captain obvious, it's rather normal that by changing A, and only A, B remains, untouched and thus unchanged.

AlanC9 wrote...
Fair enough. All I'm entitled to say there is that every proposal I've ever seen for the trial would have flopped as drama.

Once again, only in your eyes, everybody else may enjoy it, don't project your opinion on the masses, that's very unhealty.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
This is worth responding to as well since it ties with my previous post, but in essence if you fix this favoritism of Paragons at the very end of the third game, then what you have done is sacrifice consistency for balance.

That's a fair description. I don't personally have any respect for consistency; if I like a change on the merits I'm not bothered by the fact that it is a change. But given the way loss aversion works, I can see the other side of this.

But have we really achieved balance in the current endings, P/R wise? Is it accurate to say that in these endings, the Paragon path and Renegade path are balanced because the Renegade path has slightly better consequences?

Are we equating Refuse with Paragon and all others with Renegade?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 avril 2013 - 05:14 .

[johnj1979]

Mr.House wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

The best and looks will always be the best for DLC is the DLC for Mass Effect 2 (expect for The Arrival)

Bioware had a year to close the stories of Mass Effect and fix Mass Effect 3 and they didn't do anything with it. Instead they just released DLC that asks even more questions.

I think the DLC for Mass Effect 2 were better story (except for The Arrival) and better value for money than the DLC for Mass Effect 3.

-Zaeed: Was mostly crap, just another squadmate to an already big rooster who didn't have proper conversations and the LM was pretty crappy. Though Robin so points there.
-Kasumi:Good mission, but suffers the same issue as Zaeed
-FIrewalker:Waste of time and pure crap
-Overlord:Good action focused adventure(Like Omega)
-LOTSB:Second best dlc Bioware has done
-Arrival:Crap

ME3:
-Javik:Fantastic companion, decent mission and he had lots of dialog.
-Leviathan:A solid dlc, lakcing in the gameplay area but good overall
-Omega:Good action pack dlc, that's it(Overlord beats it because Overlord was cheaper and more polished)
-Citadel:Best dlc Bioware has done.

Opinions for everyone

Most of the Citadel was a copy and paste DLC that came out for Mass Effect 1 only "Attack of the Clone" was good in tht DLC.

Most of the ALL left more questions than answers.

Modifié par johnj1979, 24 avril 2013 - 07:48 .

[johnj1979]

I love to know where is the paragon ending in the game because ALL I see is three ending of what the Reapers are doing to the galaxy and one ending that what Shepard is trying to do the save the galaxy.

[Jorji Costava]

Some random points on the P/R system (TL;DR warning):

-We may be underestimating the balance of the system, all things considered. It's worth remembering that a fair amount of renegade actions aren't really pragmatic, but straight-out sociopathic (the full renegade resolution to the Lorik Qui'in situation on Noveria comes to mind). This is probably because the system is as much an excrescence of the light side/dark side system of KOTOR as it is the idealism vs. pragmatism model it purports to be.

The balancing consideration, it seems to me, is that you can commit these actions with relative impunity. So it seems that just as a renegade can ask, "Why be renegade when paragon always gets results that are just as good?", the paragon can ask, "Why be paragon when I can unleash my id with near total impunity?" I would probably do away with the system altogether if it were up to me, but if the question is simply, "How balanced between paragon and renegade is the P/R system?", then I think we need to take a fuller account of the data.

-Two points on the endings and their relationship to the P/R system:

1. Looking at synthesis, intent clearly failed to translate into execution. Synthesis was probably intended as an option that, in broad strokes, is paragon in nature. But because it's offered by the bad guy (I doubt the developers intended us to see the Catalyst this way, but as the leader of the Reapers, he's bound to be seen as the bad guy), and because it involves unprecedented large scale physical changes to everyone without their awareness or agreement, it seems a lot more ethically questionable than intended.

2. Looking at the destroy ending in particular, I actually don't think that what bothers people about it is that it involves large scale sacrifice of friendly forces. Even a paragon might justify such an action on the basis of double effect or a similar doctrine. Rather, it's the racially specific nature of the required sacrifice. Here are two variations on Destroy to illustrate:

A. The crucible destroys the Reapers, but takes earth plus 90% of the fleet along with it.

B. The crucible destroys the Reapers, but selectively exterminates all members of [insert ethnic or religious minority group here].

From a numbers point of view, option ( is less bad than option A; after all, there are probably a lot fewer people in that group than there are people on earth, let alone earth plus the fleet. But if the Destroy option was set up like (, you'd question the intentions of the writers in a way that you wouldn't with (A). Why are we picking on this one group? What kind of a message is being sent? It isn't just about sacrifice, because if you wanted a story about sacrifice you'd set up the scenario like (A).

The existing destroy scenario is a lot like (, and I think that's what's behind the problems with it. By ME2, synthetics had seemingly become the game's take on the Other; synthetic/organic difference was a metaphor for cultural difference. From that point of view, the destroy option is bothersome more from a thematic perspective than from the perspective of purely in-universe ethical deliberation.

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...
-We may be underestimating the balance of the system, all things considered. It's worth remembering that a fair amount of renegade actions aren't really pragmatic, but straight-out sociopathic (the full renegade resolution to the Lorik Qui'in situation on Noveria comes to mind). This is probably because the system is as much an excrescence of the light side/dark side system of KOTOR as it is the idealism vs. pragmatism model it purports to be.

Agreed. I have trouble coming up with RP reasons for my characters to do most of the Renegade actions in ME1, although some of my Sheps end up with a fair amount of Renegade points from dialogue.

The balancing consideration, it seems to me, is that you can commit these actions with relative impunity. So it seems that just as a renegade can ask, "Why be renegade when paragon always gets results that are just as good?", the paragon can ask, "Why be paragon when I can unleash my id with near total impunity?" I would probably do away with the system altogether if it were up to me, but if the question is simply, "How balanced between paragon and renegade is the P/R system?", then I think we need to take a fuller account of the data.

I don't think of Paragons as restraining their natural tendency to commit violent douchebaggery because of their  fear of consequences, but I'm not sure you meant this paragraph to come across that way.

1. Looking at synthesis, intent clearly failed to translate into execution. Synthesis was probably intended as an option that, in broad strokes, is paragon in nature. But because it's offered by the bad guy (I doubt the developers intended us to see the Catalyst this way, but as the leader of the Reapers, he's bound to be seen as the bad guy), and because it involves unprecedented large scale physical changes to everyone without their awareness or agreement, it seems a lot more ethically questionable than intended.

Probably. Note that Synthesis does share a characteristic with many other Paragon choices, since Shepard's taking a chance on an action where the consequences aren't very well understood. The consequences generally works out fine in the series; Rana Thanoptis is a rare exception

I tried polling something like your option (A) once, but the thread broke down since so many of the people who don't like the ending only want to talk about MEHEM when you bring up hypotheticals. Maybe we could try again?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 avril 2013 - 10:18 .

[SpamBot2000]

osbornep wrote...

From a numbers point of view, option ( is less bad than option A; after all, there are probably a lot fewer people in that group than there are people on earth, let alone earth plus the fleet. But if the Destroy option was set up like (, you'd question the intentions of the writers in a way that you wouldn't with (A). Why are we picking on this one group? What kind of a message is being sent? It isn't just about sacrifice, because if you wanted a story about sacrifice you'd set up the scenario like (A).

Indeed, it is about accepting the Reaper view of the Universe, as are the other endings. Except the "Game Over, trolololol!" one.

As for the Paragon/Renegade dichotomy, yeah, it's just a light/dark side type thing, without the actual consequences there were in KotOR. There might have been a point to it, had BW actually decided to implement it with care (with Paragon being the loyal military path and Renegade the outlaw/Cerberus type of path). But they never did.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 10:33 .

[Kunari801]

AlanC9 wrote...

1. Looking at synthesis, intent clearly failed to translate into execution. Synthesis was probably intended as an option that, in broad strokes, is paragon in nature. But because it's offered by the bad guy (I doubt the developers intended us to see the Catalyst this way, but as the leader of the Reapers, he's bound to be seen as the bad guy), and because it involves unprecedented large scale physical changes to everyone without their awareness or agreement, it seems a lot more ethically questionable than intended.

Probably. Note that Synthesis does share a characteristic with many other Paragon choices, since Shepard's taking a chance on an action where the consequences aren't very well understood. The consequences generally works out fine in the series; Rana Thanoptis is a rare exception

Agreed. I'm sure they probably did intend for Synthesis to be better recieved than it is. I, like many others, do no trust the Catalyst nor did they portray Synthesis in a positive way in the pre-or-post EC endings. The difficulty is that it doesn't really make much sense. Perhaps they should have portrayed it as transcending physical existence entirely and evolving into a higher state of being. Even then, how would you show it on screen in a positive light?

I don't know what their actual intent for Synthesis was, but it fails to entice me to select it as my choice.

Control had some merit, but not as it is in game.

Destroy has faults too, but is the least-of-the-worst IMHO.

[Jorji Costava]

@AlanC9

Good points. You're right; I didn't mean to suggest that paragons restrain themselves from committing questionable acts for fear of punishment (reminds me of an old Colbert joke: "I know the #1 I don't commit murder is the fear of capital punishment. #2 reason: Wood chipper broken."). My suggestion is that there's a clear sense in which the fact that you can do some pretty nasty things with no fear of consequences is a 'benefit' or 'perk' of being renegade, and these benefits might be seen as counterbalancing the advantages of being a paragon to some extent.

It would be interesting to see what the reaction to (A) would be. I wouldn't really have a problem with the option if it were structured in this manner. Another alternative I've heard is to set things up this way: Option 1 destroys the bad guys with minimal casualties, but shuts down the relay network as a side effect, while Option 2 preserves the relays and enables something more like conventional victory, but at a hideous cost to Earth and the fleet.

@SpamBot2000:

That's pretty much what I got out of it. It's admittedly not a popular opinion at all, but my sense is that Destroy is principally about resolving the technological singularity: Wipe out synthetics now so they don't rebel, and take your chances down the road that organics won't commit the mistake of making super-advanced synthetics that will wipe them out in the future. If you didn't buy the singularity (I didn't), then it's not going to work at all.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are we equating Refuse with Paragon and all others with Renegade?

That's what I believe. Refuse is the only choice that I could have seen showing up blue on the left side of the dialogue wheel. Perhaps Control in the original endings when players could headcanon flying all the Reapers into the sun.

Again, that's not to say there aren't Paragon reasons for picking Control, Destroy, or Synthesis, but that is different from a Paragon "choice" which rarely deals in shades of grey and often aligns with the inherent morality of an act separated from its consequences.

[CronoDragoon]

osbornep wrote...
The balancing consideration, it seems to me, is that you can commit these actions with relative impunity. So it seems that just as a renegade can ask, "Why be renegade when paragon always gets results that are just as good?", the paragon can ask, "Why be paragon when I can unleash my id with near total impunity?" I would probably do away with the system altogether if it were up to me, but if the question is simply, "How balanced between paragon and renegade is the P/R system?", then I think we need to take a fuller account of the data.

I look at this a different way. I don't compare balance by a Paragon's reaction to Renegade choices and vice versa, but rather a Paragon's reaction to Paragon choices and vice versa. In other words, the essential question is whether or not Paragons and Renegades feel rewarded for the choices they have made. I haven't played enough Renegade to comment extensively on how Renegades feel about their own choices, but in the Renegade playthrough I do have (which occurred before PS3 ME1 was released) I was often fine with how Renegade choices played out. The only big problem I have with Renegade in Mass Effect is how P/R is used in squad dialogues where you are nice/mean to people. Just because I enjoy certain characters that makes my dialogue choices Paragon? Just because I don't like certain characters I'm Renegade? Although this may have been fixed with the reputation system in ME3; it's been awhile since I played so I don't remember.

1. Looking at synthesis, intent clearly failed to translate into execution. Synthesis was probably intended as an option that, in broad strokes, is paragon in nature. But because it's offered by the bad guy (I doubt the developers intended us to see the Catalyst this way, but as the leader of the Reapers, he's bound to be seen as the bad guy), and because it involves unprecedented large scale physical changes to everyone without their awareness or agreement, it seems a lot more ethically questionable than intended.

It's clear, especially in previous drafts of the ending sequence, that Synthesis was meant to be the rewarding extra choice, a sort of third option that served as a stand-in hybrid P/R choice. Obviously it didn't work for the player base. Even staunch Synthesis supporters still have significant issues with the method.

2. Looking at the destroy ending in particular, I actually don't think that what bothers people about it is that it involves large scale sacrifice of friendly forces. Even a paragon might justify such an action on the basis of double effect or a similar doctrine. Rather, it's the racially specific nature of the required sacrifice.

The combination of the Catalyst's beliefs + the evidence that he generated the choices can shed an unfavorable light on the synthetic sacrifice in Destroy, so much so that many players feel like you are submitting to the Catalyst's wishes even while picking the choice he favors the least. Myself, I don't believe that Destroy was intended to be the choice where you destroy synthetics in order to prevent the tech singularity; I think Destroy was intended to be an outright refusal of the tech singularity, and that later on in the process they decided to include synthetic destruction so that more people looked at the other ending choices, never examining the implications of combining these two ideas into one ending.

As for what people have a problem with: the sacrifice itself isn't at the heart of the issue. Many players sacrificed quite a bit of human lives to save the Council in ME1. The issue is the nature of the sacrifice, namely that synthetics did not consent to this specific form of sacrifice. I've seen some argue they are okay with the Destroy sacrifice because the geth and EDI signed up for war knowing they could very well die. Others point out that signing up to fight and die is different than being targeted and killed so that organics could live. This is also why many Destroy players would gladly trade Shepard's life for the geth/EDI in Destroy; by allowing those sacrificed to preserve their autonomy by deciding themselves to go through with it, you preserve Paragon morality.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 25 avril 2013 - 04:02 .

[Jorji Costava]

@CronoDragoon:

I suspect we're largely in agreement about the P/R system. What I was responding to was the idea that the system is hopelessly balanced in favor of renegades, and it's hat view which is predicated upon evaluating paragon choices in terms of how renegades might evaluate them or vice versa, and I think that's the view we're both resisting. So perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best, but I think we're both agreed that the system is better balanced than it's given credit for.

As far as the Destroy option, I just have a hard time viewing it as an outright refusal of the tech singularity hypothesis. I suppose that could be Shepard's reason for choosing it, if that's how you role-play, but thematically I don't think that's what it's about, and the reason is that if that were the intent, the choices the writers made were all the wrong ones, and were wrong in ways that should have been obvious.

If you just wanted to impose a price on destroy, why choose a group that has a non-trivial chance of not even being around to be sacrificed? Further, denying the singularity hypothesis means affirming that organics and synthetics can get along without quasi-divine intervention; surely, the systematic destruction of synthetics is exactly the wrong way to dramatically convey this rejection. In choosing destroy, you show that synthetics and organics can get along by wiping out synthetics--thematically, that looks totally incoherent, and as many problems as I have with the ending, I have a tough time believing the writers would miss that. The simpler explanation to my mind is that Destroy was intended as the blunt force solution to the singularity, similar to the Tracer Tong ending in Deus Ex.

[AlexMBrennan]

That's what I believe. Refuse is the only choice that I could have seen showing up blue on the left side of the dialogue wheel. Perhaps Control in the original endings when players could headcanon flying all the Reapers into the sun.

Paragons use violence as a last resort, but will still use it if it is necessary. The ending is such a case - everyone will die if Shepard doesn't press a button; picking it is just plain stupid.
If you want to play an absolute pacifist, well, you can't. Maybe try Deus Ex.

[PsyrenY]

CronoDragoon wrote...

That's what I believe. Refuse is the only choice that I could have seen showing up blue on the left side of the dialogue wheel. Perhaps Control in the original endings when players could headcanon flying all the Reapers into the sun.

Again, that's not to say there aren't Paragon reasons for picking Control, Destroy, or Synthesis, but that is different from a Paragon "choice" which rarely deals in shades of grey and often aligns with the inherent morality of an act separated from its consequences.

Liquefying everyone depending on you just to satisfy your own selfish pride is Paragon? Seems legit.

[SpamBot2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

That's what I believe. Refuse is the only choice that I could have seen showing up blue on the left side of the dialogue wheel. Perhaps Control in the original endings when players could headcanon flying all the Reapers into the sun.

Again, that's not to say there aren't Paragon reasons for picking Control, Destroy, or Synthesis, but that is different from a Paragon "choice" which rarely deals in shades of grey and often aligns with the inherent morality of an act separated from its consequences.

Liquefying everyone depending on you just to satisfy your own selfish pride is Paragon? Seems legit.

This is the thinking of the ending lovers... Basic confusion about who is doing that.

You got it backwards, the Reapers you insist on collaborating with are doing it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 avril 2013 - 09:17 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Shepard is given the option of stopping the Reapers from killing everyone and chooses not to take it. Whilst Shepard may not personally have thrown anyone in a blender he is still to blame for the deaths (cf negligence)

[SpamBot2000]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Shepard is given the option of stopping the Reapers from killing everyone and chooses not to take it. Whilst Shepard may not personally have thrown anyone in a blender he is still to blame for the deaths (cf negligence)

No, BioWare made him freeze when he refused to assist the Catalyst in its billion year program of assimilation. 

You are being subtly indoctrinated by the hostility of BioWare to Shepard.

[Alien Number Six]

I felt they did a great job on all of the DLC. The free multiplayer DLC was a great change of pace from paying 15 dollars for a few multiplayer maps. The Citadel DLC was fun to play and had tons of great funny moments. Also fighting your Shepard was a challenge on the Normandy and in the Armax Arena's mirror match on insanity. I enjoied having Aria as a squadmate during the Omega DLC. Extended Cut was needed to expand a ending that was rather abrupt. I thought the Leviathan was very intresting. From Ashes could have had a bit more mission content. I thought Javik was awesome and the Particle Rifle was a cool weapon. Also I thank BioWare for the Collectors Edition weapons and costumes. I also enjoyed the multiplayer weapons packs and the appearance packs that were released. This allowed me to practice with some of those guns before unlocking them in multiplayer and the extra costumes where neat.

[Alien Number Six]

Too bad this became another I hate the ending whine fest.

[AlexMBrennan]

The free multiplayer DLC was a great change of pace from paying 15 dollars for a few multiplayer maps

Nothing is free, ever. But on the other hand you don't have to pay to unlock the fun weapons and classes in CoD - one way or another, the average customer will pay $15 for that online content.