416 réponses à ce sujet

[shodiswe]

The Genophage is wrong even if it's for the greater good. Which is why people cure it.

[David7204]

Tell me, can you think of any AAA games that require any kind of special skill or intelligence or whatnot from the player to beat?

[The Heretic of Time]

shodiswe wrote...

The Genophage is wrong even if it's for the greater good. Which is why people cure it.

And some people argue that the greater good outweights the moral issues that comes with the genophage, which is why some people do not cure it.


See, morality and opinions are a beautiful thing. Everyone has their own subjective view on it.  And it would be wonderful if people, including the BioWare fans and devs accepted that and didn't try to label my decision for NOT curing the genophage as a "bad" or an "immoral" decision, just because they, with their own subjective set of moral values, subjectively think so. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juin 2013 - 06:15 .

[AresKeith]

shodiswe wrote...

The Genophage is wrong even if it's for the greater good. Which is why people cure it.

I agree with you it is wrong, but I wouldn't cure it with Wreav in-charge

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Tell me, can you think of any AAA games that require any kind of special skill or intelligence or whatnot from the player to beat?

Any oldschool RPG (such as Fallout and Fallout 2).

Starcraft 2 on Brutal difficulty.

The Witcher 2 on Dark Mode.

Pretty much any fighting game.

BioShock Infinite on the highest difficulty (1999 mode).


Those are just the first that come to mind. Honestly, I could list pretty much EVERY game that isn't marketed towards casual gamers, dudebro's or people like you.



Again, I feel like you never played any game outside of Mass Effect. I bet you never even played Mass Effect on Insanity, which is reasonably difficult, if you play a Vanguard that is.

Tell me David, which games do you have in your library of games?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juin 2013 - 06:15 .

[David7204]

You notice all those games have lower difficulties as well?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...
Davie snips

:wub:

Ohhhhh Davie I need more! Insult someone else!!!!<3<3<3

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 03 juin 2013 - 06:18 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shodiswe wrote...

The Genophage is wrong even if it's for the greater good. Which is why people cure it.

I disagree with you. I cure it for the sole purpose of curing the genophage. 

Post-war, my Shepard will go to Wrex, his good friend, and Eve, and tell them they have one chance, with one new planet to make things better.

Or he'll finish their race off permanently.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You notice all those games have lower difficulties as well?

Not all those games.

And the games that do have multiple diffiuclty settings have it so people can choose the difficulty that suits their intelligence and set of skills. What is your point? Are you trying to say here that you're just dumb and/or a terrible gamer?

Could it be that you're perhaps just dumb and/or suck at games and that you therefor want them to be insultingly easy? God forbid that you actually have to use your brains to win a game, because that's totally a chore, right?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juin 2013 - 06:26 .

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Or he'll finish their race off permanently.

I wonder how he plans to do that.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:21 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Or he'll finish their race off permanently.

I wonder how he plans to do that.

I'm not here to explain anything to you David.

Sod off.

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

In ME1, if you helped Wrex get his family armor back you didn't need paragon/renegade to.convince him on Virmire

I liked how Bioware did that

[David7204]

I liked that scenario, too.

The point is that whatever challenge you put in a game has to doable by most players without being too frustrating or difficult. And I have serious doubts that could be accomplished with a dialogue system.

The ones I've seen haven't impressed me. I didn't like the system in LA Noire. I played the first episode of The Walking Dead, and I wasn't impressed. I've played flash games on the internet with them, and they've never been very good.

Such a system needs to be beatable by an intelligent player the first time they play through.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:35 .

[Astartes Marine]

I don't know about them being removed entirely...but I would not want them to be "blue is good and red is evil" like it seemed like in ME3.  Red was certainly a more dickish route than in previous games with blue overflowing with gag-inducing Jedi-ness.

I mean Dirty Harry for example is no paragon, but he's far from evil. 

As Yahtzee said about the original BioShock (the ending specifically):
In order to build up your character you need to gather cybernetic mod- sorry, ADAM. A mysterious compound that can only be acquired by doing dreadful things to little girls, and this is the crux of the game's touted "Moral Choice" system, but there are only two endings, a good one and a bad one, and the extreme contrast between them is rather jarring.
In the good ending, you're a virtuous flower child with love and a smile for all the shiny-coated beasts of God's kingdom, and in the bad ending you're some kind of hybrid of Hitler and Skeletor whose very ****** is pure liquid malevolence. I'm sick of games that claim to have choice but that only really come down either to Mother Teresa or baby-eating. All I'm saying is that a little middle ground is nice now and then.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I liked that scenario, too.

The point is that whatever challenge you put in a game has to doable by most players without being too frustrating or difficult. And I have serious doubts that could be accomplished with a dialogue system.

It's the fact that you can do it without the blue or red dialogue because you earned that characters trust

[David7204]

The absolute most Paragon Shepard kills people, lies to people, manipulates people, threatens people, and hurts people. S/he makes a lot of tough choices. That's hardly 'gag-inducing Jedi-ness.'

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:33 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

And I have serious doubts that could be accomplished with a dialogue system.

That's because of your incredibly small and limited library of games (that you have played).

I advice you to do some homework and get yourself a bit more schooled on the subject. Here are some games that I advice you to play:


- Fallout (the first one or the second one, NOT the 3D games by Bethesda or Obsidian)
- Arcanum
- Fahrenheit
- Heavy Rain
- The Witcher (1 and/or 2)


That's a good list, listed from old to new. You should definitely give at least 2 of those a try and then tell me if you're still convinced that it's impossible to offer a challenge to a player in a dialogue system, or at the very least make the player think and use their brain for a second before they blindly pick the upper-left dialogue option.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juin 2013 - 06:39 .

[ThinkSharp]

Here's my question: why the hate for paragon explicitly? Why assume that everyone clicks the top right corner without thinking?

How about people who pick the lower right mindlessly?

Why does playing as a paragade suddenly mean someone thought more?

Here's the thing: most dialogue options aren't even tied to a morality. They're tied to a tone. I want to be able to judge what the tone of Shepard's response is going to be. So, yes, I don't mind that the layout of options is itself obvious. I like the wheel the way it is. I may choose a tone more consistently than not, but that doesn't mean it's mindless.

What needs changing isn't paragon/renegade as much as charm/intimidate--the blue and red options. The problem isn't that the supposed morality of these choices are obvious, the problem is that their ultimate outcome is obvious. They're a get out of jail free card. As long as I pick the color, I'm in the clear. That's what becomes mindless.

Keep the tone of dialogue and choices clear, but not the outcome. Let there be true differences between types of choices. Let these outcomes be nuanced. Pros and cons to each.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 03 juin 2013 - 06:40 .

[David7204]

There are pros and cons to each choice as it is. The con of having the krogan as a possible threat when curing the genophage, for example.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:40 .

[ThinkSharp]

David7204 wrote...

There are pros and cons to each choice as it is. The con of having the krogan as a possible threat when curing the genophage, for example.

That's an example of when it was done right, I agree. It really made the player question it. That's good.

Curing the genophage also wasn't an ME2 style choice of pick the blue or red good option or pick white and fail.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 03 juin 2013 - 06:43 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ThinkSharp wrote...

Here's my question: why the hate for paragon explicitly? Why assume that everyone clicks the top right corner without thinking?

How about people who pick the lower right mindlessly?

Why does playing as a paragade suddenly mean someone thought more?

Here's the thing: most dialogue options aren't even tied to a morality. They're tied to a tone. I want to be able to judge what the tone of Shepard's response is going to be. So, yes, I don't mind that the layout of options is itself obvious. I like the wheel the way it is. I may choose a tone more consistently than not, but that doesn't mean it's mindless.

What needs changing isn't paragon/renegade as much as charm/intimidate--the blue and red options. The problem isn't that the supposed morality of these choices are obvious, the problem is that their outcome is obvious. They're a get out of jail free card. As long as I pick the color, I'm in the clear. That's what becomes mindless.

Keep the tone of dialogue and choices clear, but not the outcome. Let there be true differences between types of choices. Let these outcomes be nuanced. Pros and cons to each.

See though, that's what people are arguing against on here.

You nailed it, but you kind of interpreted it differently than some.

It's the fact that the spammers who do mindlessy click upper-left get away with a lot of the **** in the game. We don't want the consequences for doing so to be so straight as you say. 

I don't think anyone is objectively arguing that any one philosophy is better than another.... except David.

I personally advocate a true neutral approach. My decisions and my morals are based on the context of each situation I find myself in with whatever info I have.

[David7204]

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have said that. It's not really true. Not every 'choice' has a good side and a bad side. Nor should they.

If heroism is meaningful, 'good' choices need to lead to 'good' outcomes.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:44 .

[DeinonSlayer]

@ThinkSharp
Another good point. In DA:O, you could use the very same Persuade/Intimidate dialogue options, but unless you had enough cunning/strength/persuasion level, the target would remain unconvinced - it was possible to fail at a persuasion. Switch over to Mass Effect, and any unlocked persuasion option becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card, the only exceptions in the entire trilogy being picking away at Saren and TIM's indoctrination.

[Astartes Marine]

ThinkSharp wrote...
Here's the thing: most dialogue options aren't even tied to a morality. They're tied to a tone. I want to be able to judge what the tone of Shepard's response is going to be. So, yes, I don't mind that the layout of options is itself obvious. I like the wheel the way it is. I may choose a tone more consistently than not, but that doesn't mean it's mindless.

Fair enough, though I still feel that ME1 and 2 especially had a more balanced tone to each side, ME3 to me many times felt like they were approaching the black/white morality.

ThinkSharp wrote...
What needs changing isn't
paragon/renegade as much as charm/intimidate--the blue and red options.
The problem isn't that the supposed morality of these choices are
obvious, the problem is that their ultimate outcome is obvious. They're a
get out of jail free card. As long as I pick the color, I'm in the
clear. That's what becomes mindless.

I agree with this, as long as your P/R score was high enough you could have instant victories in dialogue like for example the Geth/Quarian problem or hell even the Illusive Man.  Not much thought had to be made in actually choosing what your character was going to say, it was just go for the win button. 

I hear Alpha Protocal, as flawed as it is, had a very impressive dialogue system but as I haven't played it I can't say with certainty.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 03 juin 2013 - 06:45 .

[David7204]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@ThinkSharp
Another good point. In DA:O, you could use the very same Persuade/Intimidate dialogue options, but unless you had enough cunning/strength/persuasion level, the target would remain unconvinced - it was possible to fail at a persuasion. Switch over to Mass Effect, and any unlocked persuasion option becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card, the only exceptions in the entire trilogy being picking away at Saren and TIM's indoctrination.

That's a trivial detail.

The option in Mass Effect is merely greyed out, while the option in DA:O results in failure. There's no real difference. They're both unusable if you don't have the skill.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 06:47 .