416 réponses à ce sujet

[andy6915]

Oh look, another thread derailed because David decided to argue everyone at once. How many good threads does that guy ruin? Too many...

[Shaftell]

No it has become a benchmark of the Mass Effect experience. They could however manipulate new ways to use the options.

[Hazegurl]

I think they should keep it but tweak it. The problem with the morality system is that none of the choices matter because every choice the player makes is the right choice. It's just a different way to go about it with different results but there are no consquences. Your friends stay your friends and don't really judge you and when they do judge you its over something the player couldn't even choose (joining Cerberus). We do need more choices that aren't "renegade or paragon" but just simply choices that may or may not bite the player in the rear. But over all I do like the system. I think we just need more consequences to our moral choices and more hard choices that make us sweat because the outcome may not be favorable in the end. That means that even if a player makes a paragon choice it could blow up in his face big time and vice versa.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I am a monster. I stood there asking questions while a sick batarian was coughing. I kept pressing him about Mordin Solus. I wasn't interested in his troubles. I am a monster. I deliberately missed the paragon interrupt and watched him croak. I felt nothing. I am a monster. I got 7 renegade points. I was playing an Earthborn/Ruthless Shepard.

I've shot Wrex. I've shot Legion. I've deliberately sent characters who were disloyal as the specialist on the suicide mission, or taken them on the last leg of the mission. I am a monster. Hmmm.... that's something to do with Jacob. Romance him, don't do his loyalty mission, and take him on the last leg. Awww.....

Seriously, they need to dump the system. Go back to putting skill points into speech. Combine that with a reputation system. Persuade or Intimidate. The more side missions you do, the higher your reputation -- but get a better journal system FFS.

So...do you want the game to treat you like a monster or not?

LMAO! Way to miss the point that Shotgun Julia actually tried to make here David. 


You weren't kidding that you think using your brains is a chore, were you? God, I've never met anyone so dense as you David. 

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

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.

Define "good".


If you're saying that SMART choices should always lead to good outcomes, than I absolutely agree.

If you're saying that the morally right choices* should always lead to good outcomes, I couldn't disagree more.


*which makes me wonder what the "morally right" choices should be, since morality is entirely subjective and everyone has a different opinion on what is "the right thing to do".

[crimzontearz]

Should they be removed? Not necessarily no, but they should be handled differently and the game should not railroad you like ME2 did

[Linkenski]

Casey needs to see this.

[Archonsg]

At the end of the day, Renegade or Paragon choices are there for the player to *role play*. However, the author/s then need to keep this in mind and allow the player to role play his / her path and allow resolution to the path that the player took.

That didn't happen with ME3.
Or at least not for the Paragon in my opinion.

[AresKeith]

crimzontearz wrote...

Should they be removed? Not necessarily no, but they should be handled differently and the game should not railroad you like ME2 did

If they could improve on it, then I wouldn't mind Bioware keeping it

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AresKeith wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Should they be removed? Not necessarily no, but they should be handled differently and the game should not railroad you like ME2 did

If they could improve on it, then I wouldn't mind Bioware keeping it

ME2 wasn't the game that necessarily railroaded you. 

That was ME3.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I don't know if it should be dropped, but I do think it needs to be a more consistent system, or else maybe you need two different kinds of meters. It seemed to me at times that Paragon/Renegade bounced back and forth between two different kinds of contrasts: principled vs. expedient on one hand, and polite vs. confrontational on the other. Both are worthy contrasts that add something to player choice in terms of how we want to shape our characters, but occasionally they crash head-first into each other. A few examples:

- On BDTS with Charn, the "blue" dialogue choice essentially has Shepard convince Charn that he'd be better off running these criminal operations himself without Balak, and the "red" choice has Shepard basically tell Charn, "You can attack me and take your chances, or you can leave." To the game's credit, they still give you Paragon points for the red choice (I think this may be the only time this happens), but the red choice feels more principled to me than the blue one.

- After Gerrel fires on the dreadnought with Shepard's squad on board, he argues that the mission parameters changed. Shepard's responses are, I think, "I agree" (Paragon) or "You're out of control" (Renegade). This seems to be the polite/confrontational contrast, but my Paragon Shepards are principled types and all end up using the supposedly "Renegade" dialogue choice - they don't support completely destroying the geth in the first place and have little patience with Gerrel's warmongering.

- Conversely, when dealing with Harrop on Omega in ME2 and his strong-arming of Kenn, the Paragon option with Harrop has Shepard deliver a really over-the-top threat (something like "here's a deal - you leave Kenn alone and in return I won't break your legs," IIRC). While this is arguably "principled" in that you're simply telling Harrop that he better stop what he's doing instead of appeasing him, it still seems a bit excessive.

[AresKeith]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Should they be removed? Not necessarily no, but they should be handled differently and the game should not railroad you like ME2 did

If they could improve on it, then I wouldn't mind Bioware keeping it

ME2 wasn't the game that necessarily railroaded you. 

That was ME3.

I was agreeing to the handled differently part, not the ME2 part

[Khelish]

Sajuro wrote...

Khelish wrote...

Yes. Kotor had it right, Dragon Age had it right, Mass Effect has too many people mindlessly adhering to one side or the other.

I want you to repeat this to yourself outloud.
Kotor had an arbitrary alignment system, good was helping the widow while bad taking all of her money. You could give the baby a piece of candy or you could murder the entire family
Mass Effect and Jade Empire refined the system and the problem with Kotor was the choices were either good or undeniably evil.
Origins had a good system but I think that Dragon Age II took it to another level with the rivalry and friendship scales.
If we could do morality more like Fallout or even get rid of the visible scales.

You completely missed my point.

The dialogue in Kotor at least was not cut and dry "ZOMG, UPPER RIGHT IS TEH GOOD THING TO DO!"

At least you had to read the choices and make a decision. Then again, some people believe thinking is a chore. 

[AlanC9]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

In practice haven't the nice choices always been at the top of the list in Bio games? With the infamous exception of the big choice at the Temple Mount in KotOR.

Not in Origins. At least it didn't seem that way to me. Point is, there was no karma meter staring over my shoulder. I don't think you'll find nearly as many (if any) people who play DA:O by clicking the first option in the list every time, whatever that might happen to be. Mass Effect, though? I'm hard-pressed to find a YouTube playthrough that didn't.

I was only talking about how Bio writes and arranges dialogue options, which has been the same since BG1 according to David Gaider. 

I think you're right to blame the karma meter rather than the dialogue arrangement per se. People sure did play KotOR by just clicking the top choice because that was the Light Side choice, which resulted in hilarity at the Temple.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juin 2013 - 03:40 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Archonsg wrote...

At the end of the day, Renegade or Paragon choices are there for the player to *role play*. However, the author/s then need to keep this in mind and allow the player to role play his / her path and allow resolution to the path that the player took.

That didn't happen with ME3.
Or at least not for the Paragon in my opinion.

Please explain.

Also, did you play Renegade? Why do you think the Renegades had any better resolution to their path than the Paragons?

I can tell from experience that 99% of the time in Mass Effect it's exactly the other way around. The Paragons always get the optimal and perfect resolutions to their choices, while Renegades often get left empty-handed and often are worse off than the Paragons. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juin 2013 - 05:22 .

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
At the end of the day, Renegade or Paragon choices are there for the player to *role play*. However, the author/s then need to keep this in mind and allow the player to role play his / her path and allow resolution to the path that the player took.

That didn't happen with ME3.
Or at least not for the Paragon in my opinion.

Please explain.

Also, did you play Renegade? Why do you think the Renegades had any better resolution to their path than the Paragons?

Methinks he's talking about the endings; a lot of folks say that none of the choices are "really Paragon" because there's always some sort of sacrifice involved. Though I don't see why Control isn't Paragon except that TIM liked the idea and he's eeeevill.

[v TricKy v]

I like the how Dragon Age:Origins handled this.
I also really liked it that the morally right choices were not always the best in the end. Prime example is Bhelen vs Harrowmont.
Harrowmont is friendly and looks like the "good" guy while Bhelen killed his brother and uses shady practices to become king which makes him clearly the "bad" guy. But if look further you see that Bhelen is a better king than Harrowmont because he is a reformer who modernizes the dwarven society.
I really wish more games would have something like this where the obvious good and morally right path leads to a worse outcome than the other one

Modifié par v TricKy v, 03 juin 2013 - 08:27 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
Methinks he's talking about the endings; a lot of folks say that none of the choices are "really Paragon" because there's always some sort of sacrifice involved. Though I don't see why Control isn't Paragon except that TIM liked the idea and he's eeeevill.

No, folks say that  there's always some sort of moral sacrifice involved, which is a key difference. In Control, that moral sacrifice is manifested as making an AI the God Emperor of the galaxy.

[Argolas]

DA2 did it well, too, despite it used the dialogue wheel.

In fact, the dialogue wheel in DA2 is the only thing in the game compared to Origins that was really a step forward in what I really care about in a BioWare game.

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
At the end of the day, Renegade or Paragon choices are there for the player to *role play*. However, the author/s then need to keep this in mind and allow the player to role play his / her path and allow resolution to the path that the player took.

That didn't happen with ME3.
Or at least not for the Paragon in my opinion.

Please explain.

Also, did you play Renegade? Why do you think the Renegades had any better resolution to their path than the Paragons?

Methinks he's talking about the endings; a lot of folks say that none of the choices are "really Paragon" because there's always some sort of sacrifice involved. Though I don't see why Control isn't Paragon except that TIM liked the idea and he's eeeevill.

YOU'RE ENSLAVING TWENTY THOUSAND CYCLES OF CORRUPTED LIFE AND BUILDING A GOD LIKE BEING IN YOUR OWN IMAGE

It's beyond deplorable...
It's sick...

Refuse is the Paragon ending...
Rocks fall... everyone dies...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2013 - 09:08 .

[Bill Casey]

It's a video game that propped up fascist ideology, forced the player to be a sick monster, and became offensively racist in the last five minutes...

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Methinks he's talking about the endings; a lot of folks say that none of the choices are "really Paragon" because there's always some sort of sacrifice involved. Though I don't see why Control isn't Paragon except that TIM liked the idea and he's eeeevill.

No, folks say that  there's always some sort of moral sacrifice involved, which is a key difference. In Control, that moral sacrifice is manifested as making an AI the God Emperor of the galaxy.

My impression was that Paragon choices are all about minimizing short-term losses even if this requires moral compromise; for instance, letting Balak go in BtdS. But I'm not really qualified to interpret people's qualms about the ending.

By your standard, I guess Control can be Paragon for some Sheps but not others.