1007 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

Okay? And? I'm sure there are plenty of works of fiction that have themes that heroism is stupid and silly and futile. By all means, go and enjoy some of them.

Who are you responding to? I don't think it's me, since I never said Paragon was any of those things. If the game actually rewarded choices so that Renegade was always clearly better, it would be an equal failure. The point of the dual morality system was to make both moral codes viable, not to make one seem "right" and the other "wrong". Had they wanted that, then they should have just picked one ethical system with your decisions only affecting the level of success - a la Suicide Mission - and not what type of moral outcome you received.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 août 2013 - 06:50 .

[David7204]

In a work of fiction that promises a competent and powerful protagonist, choices that matter, and carries themes of meaningful heroism, yes, 'good' choices overwhelmingly need to lead to 'good' outcomes. I would accept one or two choices that turn out badly. And I do mean literally one or two.

It's not naive at all. Paragon means 'good' by definition. If a paragon choice isn't really good, it's because it's a poorly done choice. That says nothing about the concept itself.

Modifié par David7204, 16 août 2013 - 06:51 .

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay? And? I'm sure there are plenty of works of fiction that have themes that heroism is stupid and silly and futile. By all means, go and enjoy some of them.

Good. You've conceded. That's all I wanted to know.

I'm not sure what you think I conceded. What did I concede?

[Barquiel]

I'll never understand the desire to punish Paragon decisions.

No choices (paragon or renegade) backfire, they just change how the story is perceived. I mean...where are Renegades punished, specifically?

[Seboist]

David7204 wrote...

In a work of fiction that promises a competent and powerful protagonist, choices that matter, and carries themes of meaningful heroism, yes, good choices overwhelmingly need to lead to good outcomes. I would accept one or two choices that turn out badly. And I do mean literally one or two.

It's not naive at all. Paragon means 'good' by definition. If a paragon choice isn't really good, it's because it's a poorly done choice. That says nothing about the concept itself.

Shepard was real brillaint when he ordered the Thannix equipped SR-2 to engage the collector ship at close range.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

In a work of fiction that promises a competent and powerful protagonist, choices that matter, and carries themes of meaningful heroism, yes, 'good' choices overwhelmingly need to lead to 'good' outcomes. I would accept one or two choices that turn out badly. And I do mean literally one or two.

It's not naive at all. Paragon means 'good' by definition. If a paragon choice isn't really good, it's because it's a poorly done choice. That says nothing about the concept itself.

So the Paragon choice like letting Rana Thanoptis live is a poorly done choice because it penalizes you?

[KaiserShep]

Yeah when I read that email I did regret letting that lady go. I don't remember if there was an option to kill her in ME2, but I wish I did.

[David7204]

I never said such a thing. There's no place for it in the stories like Mass Effect. There's plenty of room in stories like, I dunno, Kane and Lynch or something. In fact, it's even expected in such stories.

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I'll never understand the desire to punish Paragon decisions.

Probably because it acknowledges you all have an active god/agent of morality/benevolent universe overseeing your actions and rewarding you.

No. That's just Narrative Causality.

[CronoDragoon]

Barquiel wrote...

I'll never understand the desire to punish Paragon decisions.

No choices (paragon or renegade) backfire, they just change how the story is perceived. I mean...where are Renegades punished, specifically?

The problem is that "Renegade" morality essentially bases itself in consequentialism: that whatever action produces the best consequences/state of the world is the best action. But Paragon decisions often lead to better outcomes than Renegade decisions, even though Renegade decisions don't "backfire" necessarily. This leads to - in hindsight - Renegades constantly being wrong. There are a few decisions that go against this - like Tuchanka - but Tuchanka has the benefit of never having to show which moral side was correct.

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

In a work of fiction that promises a competent and powerful protagonist, choices that matter, and carries themes of meaningful heroism, yes, 'good' choices overwhelmingly need to lead to 'good' outcomes. I would accept one or two choices that turn out badly. And I do mean literally one or two.

It's not naive at all. Paragon means 'good' by definition. If a paragon choice isn't really good, it's because it's a poorly done choice. That says nothing about the concept itself.

So the Paragon choice like letting Rana Thanoptis live is a poorly done choice because it penalizes you?

How does it punish you?

[David7204]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The problem is that "Renegade" morality essentially bases itself in consequentialism: that whatever action produces the best consequences/state of the world is the best action. But Paragon decisions often lead to better outcomes than Renegade decisions, even though Renegade decisions don't "backfire" necessarily. This leads to - in hindsight - Renegades constantly being wrong. There are a few decisions that go against this - like Tuchanka - but Tuchanka has the benefit of never having to show which moral side was correct.

That just isn't true at all. Paragon choices are just as concerned about the future as Renegade ones.

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

Modifié par David7204, 16 août 2013 - 06:57 .

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

That just isn't true at all. Paragon choices are just as concerned about the future as Renegade ones.

No, they aren't. Renegades care ONLY about the consequences, not the morality of the act itself. Paragons care about both, which means that they are not just as concerned.

[Steelcan]

Paragonsl choices seem to drip of naivete, that should be punished occasionally.

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

So then what is the point of the dual morality system? 

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

In a work of fiction that promises a competent and powerful protagonist, choices that matter, and carries themes of meaningful heroism, yes, 'good' choices overwhelmingly need to lead to 'good' outcomes. I would accept one or two choices that turn out badly. And I do mean literally one or two.

It's not naive at all. Paragon means 'good' by definition. If a paragon choice isn't really good, it's because it's a poorly done choice. That says nothing about the concept itself.

So the Paragon choice like letting Rana Thanoptis live is a poorly done choice because it penalizes you?

How does it punish you?

If you let her live sometime in ME3 she kills quite a few people in the Asari government or military I think (I don't know if it takes away EMS or anything)

The so called "good" choice ends up costing lives

Modifié par AresKeith, 16 août 2013 - 07:00 .

[David7204]

CronoDragoon wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

So then what is the point of the dual morality system? 

To give the players more control over their character, obviously.

[CronoDragoon]

David7204 wrote...

To give the players more control over their character, obviously.

And yet they could have given players more control over their character with no morality system at all, a la Dragon Age. So why decide to make decisions either Paragon or Renegade?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 août 2013 - 07:02 .

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

How does it punish you?

If you let her live sometime in ME3 she kills quite a few people in the Asari government or military I think (I don't know if it takes away EMS or anything)

The so called "good" choice ends up costing lives

Well, since it's a bunch of faceless people I've never seen, it doesn't particularly bother me.

Modifié par David7204, 16 août 2013 - 07:03 .

[AresKeith]

StreetMagic wrote...

Good job, Bioware. All you've accomplished with the Renegade/Paragon system is make David feel more smug. Damn enablers. /golfclap

I bet if David was on the Bioware team, he would have the Renegade cut and be all Paragon

[Seboist]

David7204 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

So then what is the point of the dual morality system? 

To give the players more control over their character, obviously.

That explain why ME1-3 are linear railroaded corridor shooters?

[Seboist]

AresKeith wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Good job, Bioware. All you've accomplished with the Renegade/Paragon system is make David feel more smug. Damn enablers. /golfclap

I bet if David was on the Bioware team, he would have the Renegade cut and be all Paragon

Tbh, ME would have been better as just a TPS with spellcasting and no pretense of "choices". You woudn't have to worry about derp discontinuity like Udina/Anderson councilor decision or magical Rachni Queen clone either.