Aller au contenu

On "gut wrenching" Choices. The get-out-of-jail-free-card.


310 réponses à ce sujet

#226
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Having two choices and then having only ONE of those choices have anything negative tied to them at all, while the other choice is rainbows and sunshine IS moronic, idiotic, stupid and the simplest form of narrative attempt possible.


There is quite the implication in your choice of words here, Jimmy, given you appeared to be using content from both DA and ME as examples....


I can't think of DA doing that once. Nothing is as binary and lopsided in its benefits versus detriments as ME's paragon/renegade system. ME1 and 2 made a decent run of makign things balanced, but ME3, in my opinion, just point to every variance, option and choice that was on the renegade side and made it seem like they were being done by a Saturday morning cartoon villain instead of a hero trying to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

So you guys get a free pass. :innocent:

#227
ManchesterUnitedFan1

ManchesterUnitedFan1
  • Members
  • 1 312 messages
planning to play the games*

#228
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

AresKeith wrote...

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

David7204, if you have never even played the DA games, how do you feel qualified to post on a thread about a specific choice within said games?

Boggles the mind.


Because he feels that games should be about heroism instead of RPing


I'm quoting you, but it's been a trend in the past several posts.  I will not tolerate posters jumping on him with dismissive, public statements (for him to see) in a passive aggressive way because people disagree with him on what he wants out of a video game.


That said, David, understand that there's a degree of understanding that may be missed if you're not actually familiar with the example.  Especially since I'm not a fan of the Connor choice, either.

#229
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Yeah fast Jimmy, if you don't save the Destiny Ascension then more Asari die than would have died if you saved it instead of the human fleet.


Yet your reason for doing so is saving the Council. That is, LITERALLY, your dialogue option. "Save the Council" or "Let Them Die."

I'll grant you that choices are sometimes represented poorly. That one in particular is one I have gripes with.


You grant wishes too?:o

#230
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 759 messages

Foshizzlin wrote...

I called it "future sushi world".


Posted Image

#231
Steelcan

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 292 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Having two choices and then having only ONE of those choices have anything negative tied to them at all, while the other choice is rainbows and sunshine IS moronic, idiotic, stupid and the simplest form of narrative attempt possible.


There is quite the implication in your choice of words here, Jimmy, given you appeared to be using content from both DA and ME as examples....


I can't think of DA doing that once. Nothing is as binary and lopsided in its benefits versus detriments as ME's paragon/renegade system. ME1 and 2 made a decent run of makign things balanced, but ME3, in my opinion, just point to every variance, option and choice that was on the renegade side and made it seem like they were being done by a Saturday morning cartoon villain instead of a hero trying to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

Its this blatant disregard for renegade choices I find irritating.  Only two were well handled IMO, sabotaging the cure was exceptionally well done, and selling Legion (ignoring the copy and paste Geth VI appearance)

#232
Plaintiff

Plaintiff
  • Members
  • 6 998 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Yeah fast Jimmy, if you don't save the Destiny Ascension then more Asari die than would have died if you saved it instead of the human fleet.


Yet your reason for doing so is saving the Council. That is, LITERALLY, your dialogue option. "Save the Council" or "Let Them Die."

I'll grant you that choices are sometimes represented poorly. That one in particular is one I have gripes with.


You grant wishes too?:o

It depends on what they are.

#233
Herr Uhl

Herr Uhl
  • Members
  • 13 465 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Having two choices and then having only ONE of those choices have anything negative tied to them at all, while the other choice is rainbows and sunshine IS moronic, idiotic, stupid and the simplest form of narrative attempt possible.


There is quite the implication in your choice of words here, Jimmy, given you appeared to be using content from both DA and ME as examples....


I can't think of DA doing that once. Nothing is as binary and lopsided in its benefits versus detriments as ME's paragon/renegade system. ME1 and 2 made a decent run of makign things balanced, but ME3, in my opinion, just point to every variance, option and choice that was on the renegade side and made it seem like they were being done by a Saturday morning cartoon villain instead of a hero trying to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

So you guys get a free pass. :innocent:


Leaving redcliffe to burn seems pretty lopsided (assuming you can't just skip the entire Eamon shenanigans and just bring Teagan from the get-go).

#234
Medhia Nox

Medhia Nox
  • Members
  • 5 066 messages
@Fast Jimmy: Do you think "Always picking blue." is the same as "roleplaying"?

Completing a game for the best possible outcome, while a totally viable way of perceiving any game - is not roleplaying.

I'm asking - not asserting or condemning.

I simply cannot understand why people MUST choose the best outcome if they think they're roleplaying.

I consider people who design their story from meta-game concepts to be "Writing" their game... not "Roleplaying" it.  Though I'm personally Anti-Writing... I'm Pro-Writing Option Included for Those Who Want It.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 02:14 .


#235
ManchesterUnitedFan1

ManchesterUnitedFan1
  • Members
  • 1 312 messages
I can literally only think of one example in mass effect of a renegade choice turning out better (well, in regards to EMS points -.-) than a paragon choice, and that is *SPOILER*


Choosing to kill Rana Thanoptis

#236
Zu Long

Zu Long
  • Members
  • 1 561 messages

Steelcan wrote...

Let me clarify my position,

For certain longstanding issues, having a variety of factors play into their final outcome with additional options opening up based on choices made is fine. (ex. Rannoch)

However not all issues will be so intensively investigated. Sometimes the PC shows up in the middle of a situation and has to make a decision and live with the consequences. (ex. Behlen/Harrowmont, Saving/Killing the Council)

For decisions such as those I believe there should be "wrong" choices. Having the PC infallible is annoying (nobody likes Diomedes over Achilles).

Having "third option" choices in instances similar to the second group of choices is a cheap cop out move IMO.


Saving the council was fine, for me, because I got to feel heroic and it could be argued that potentially sacrificing yourself for the greater good was precisely what those sailors had signed up for when they joined the MILITARY. Again, this is an example of both choices being arguable since they can both be seen as morally correct at the time you make them.

The Harrowmont/Behlen thing though is kind of sadistic since your choice is between "jackass a" and "slightly less of a jackass b." I don't care, because it's still a choice between two jackasses, and I don't feel heroic no matter who I help. Both choices are morally repugnant and so I feel no particular reason to care.

#237
Guest_Snoop Lion_*

Guest_Snoop Lion_*
  • Guests

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: Do you think "Always picking blue." is the same as "roleplaying"?

Completing a game for the best possible outcome, while a totally viable way of perceiving any game - is not roleplaying.

I'm asking - not asserting or condemning.

I simply cannot understand why people MUST choose the best outcome if they think they're roleplaying.

I consider people who design their story from meta-game concepts to be "Writing" their game... not "Roleplaying" it.  Though I'm personally Anti-Writing... I'm a Pro-Writing for Those Who Want It.


What if the person they want to roleplay is an archetypical idealistic hero?

#238
Steelcan

Steelcan
  • Members
  • 23 292 messages

Zu Long wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Let me clarify my position,

For certain longstanding issues, having a variety of factors play into their final outcome with additional options opening up based on choices made is fine. (ex. Rannoch)

However not all issues will be so intensively investigated. Sometimes the PC shows up in the middle of a situation and has to make a decision and live with the consequences. (ex. Behlen/Harrowmont, Saving/Killing the Council)

For decisions such as those I believe there should be "wrong" choices. Having the PC infallible is annoying (nobody likes Diomedes over Achilles).

Having "third option" choices in instances similar to the second group of choices is a cheap cop out move IMO.


Saving the council was fine, for me, because I got to feel heroic and it could be argued that potentially sacrificing yourself for the greater good was precisely what those sailors had signed up for when they joined the MILITARY. Again, this is an example of both choices being arguable since they can both be seen as morally correct at the time you make them.

The Harrowmont/Behlen thing though is kind of sadistic since your choice is between "jackass a" and "slightly less of a jackass b." I don't care, because it's still a choice between two jackasses, and I don't feel heroic no matter who I help. Both choices are morally repugnant and so I feel no particular reason to care.

Choices don't have to be heroic to be important.  I'd personally like to see more underhanded choices ala saving the CB being rewarded.

#239
Stella-Arc

Stella-Arc
  • Members
  • 504 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

Except you WOULDN'T have known about these requirements. I was so surprised that so many of my friends couldn't broker peace between the Quarians and the Geth while I did. They asked me how I did it and all I could tell them was "I just played how I wanted to play". It wasn't until one of them got the Prima guide that we finally found out. We didn't know there were any requirements such as having 5 points, four full bars of reputation, completeling certain quests or making sure that Tali and Legion are both alive. What you are saying is "metagaming" because now you see these "requirements" as points instead of consequences. Because you have prior knowledge, it is very easy to say that. 

Saving the herectics by rewashing them is actually the bad option while destroying them is the best option. It makes sense that Tali has to be found inncocent to convince the quarian people. After all, she is an admiral and would have more of a pull then say, an exile. Saving Koris gives you another ally that helps you push for peace and having gain Legions full trust by saving the geth prime solidify's your chances. And fnally, you must have Tali and Legion both alive to even get a CHANCE. All these requiremtents makes sense when you take the time to understand the situation. In reality, it is very difficult to achieve peace. But since people already know about the requirements, it makes it easier to get it and declare it a "get of of jail free card". That, in of itself, does NOT mean it is. Blame the Prima guide if you must.

I got the peace becuase I just played the damn game not becuase I had some prior knowledge that allowed me to "cheat". 


First off, I did as well. It required very little thought or effort, though. Just do every quest and always select the blue option. THAT'S the stupidity of the Mass Effect series. Once you figure this out, then the game becomes mindless - scan every planet, complete every quest and choose everything that's labeled blue that you can and you'll get the happiest outcomes. Except maybe the end, then you can choose a different color.

But your post here demonstrates the problem - these aren't choices. They are outcomes that come about from playing a certain manner. While that has some value... it's not a choice. Shephard isn't looking at the fate of two races and making a choice... he's got a backstage pass to talk sense into everyone. That's not a choice. That's a "Get Out of Jail Free card."

If you view having genocide commited against one race or another as a form of jail, then it is undeniable that brokering the peace  through some random events in prior and current games is NOT such a card. It's the third option that can be explained in a Prima guide. Once that knowledge is known, how many people agonize about making sure Tali isn't exiled? Who struggles with making sure you solve the Tali/Legion fight with a persuasion check? Who thinks it might not be worth it to engage in all of the Rannoch side quests?

These aren't choices, they are chores. Extra steps that a player can learn to get the magic happy ending. That certain players stumbled into it by virtue of the way they play is irrelevant - the same thing can be said of the Connor choice. If I can look at a walktrhough to give me a happy ending, then it isn't a choice. It's an obstacle course.

I'd prefer the game give me a hard choice and then give me real outcomes, both positive and negative, to either of them. Not give the player a magic win button hidden somewhere in past gameplay, or railroad the player into one decision simply because they don't want me to metagame, or give two valid options and then come through and whitewash or blackball one of them to shake a finger at the player and say "you did it wrong." 

A choice. A hard choice. That's the best kind of story-telling a game can do - something to make you think about what you believe and how you would react.


In my humblest opinion Fast Jimmy...you are not making any sense. 

First off, you don't HAVE to do ALL the quests and you don't HAVE to press the blue option. That is YOUR choice. I did not. I ROLEPLAYED. My Shepards were not all paragon or renegade; there were in-between (think paragade or renegon). However ME3 took away the "nuetral" dialogue option which gave the idea that the above is good while below is bad, thus making paragon and renegade options have more importance then they did before when it shouldn't have been (and limiting choices). But I digress. My point is that YOU decided to play that way. It is NOT the fault of the game just because you thought it was a chore and then decided that now you know everything, it somehow cheapens the entire experience. Perhaps Bioware games are just not your cup of tea or you should only play once? And just because you now know what is the "best" outcome doesn't mean the game is at fault. If you decide to "metagame", well, by all means, go right ahead. 

And you do know that from choices come "consequences", right? So your whole "these aren't choices.They are outcomes that come about from playing a certain manner" doesn't make sense. I was at a loss when I had to decide on whether to re-write the Heretics or destroy them. I wondered if I should keep my promise to Tali or break her trust and have her hate me even though she would be declared inncocent. Should I take the time to scan planets so I can upgrade my ship or don't so I can finish more missions? Should I rescue my team now or wait until I finish everything? And so on and so forth. These are choices that DO have an impact, small or large and they are called CONSEQUENCES. It mattered if you did help Tali or not, upgrade the ship, ect. It was a CHOICE that you DECIDE whether to take or not. 

To give you a reminder...Shepard/the Warden/Hakwe is you. YOU decide how he acts, thinks, and even says. You build your character any way you wish. Just because a "good" option pops up doesn't mean you have to take it. I sure as hell didn't always. It was an option that I can decide to accept or ignore and it all depended on how I wanted to shape MY Shepard. MY Warden. MY Hawke. The peace option came up because it was a RESULT of your CHOICES. 

A game, especially an RPG game (more so a Bioware game), has different variations (choices, consequences, ect). If you played the game once, then you can play the game again a DIFFERENT way. It seems you have a problem with GAMERS "cheating" and is taking it out on the game itself. I recommend you protest Prima, forums that has people help others, wiki, and developers for having the audacity to create a guide that tells you everything you need to know about beating the game. The nerve of them for having prior knowledge!

Choices and consequences do exist (DAII notwithstanding), Fast Jimmy. Just because you don't see it the way you want to doesn't mean it does not which is a shame. All Bioware games I've played had choices and consequences that I agonized over and over again even after playing it multiple times because not every character I create are the same. They are either positive or negative, big or small. They are everywhere. You just have to look. 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 22 août 2013 - 02:22 .


#240
Guest_Snoop Lion_*

Guest_Snoop Lion_*
  • Guests
As it is typical that underhanded or "Renegade" options typically offer the most short-term reward or satisfaction for some individuals, be it in real life or in typical RPGs, it's usually the Paragon, or "good guy" options that are taken and often have no real, good outcome or reward at the moment, but pay off later, either in how your companions and others react to you, how your character acts, etc. I would like to see both short term and long term rewards for both Renegade and Paragon actions, but keep them balanced enough; you can be a ruthless villain who later is betrayed by many around you if the plot deems fit, or you may be a compassionate hero who fights in vain for the good in the moment, but in the end, earn the respect of your comrades, unless some of them too are ne'er-do-wells.

#241
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

Zu Long wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Let me clarify my position,

For certain longstanding issues, having a variety of factors play into their final outcome with additional options opening up based on choices made is fine. (ex. Rannoch)

However not all issues will be so intensively investigated. Sometimes the PC shows up in the middle of a situation and has to make a decision and live with the consequences. (ex. Behlen/Harrowmont, Saving/Killing the Council)

For decisions such as those I believe there should be "wrong" choices. Having the PC infallible is annoying (nobody likes Diomedes over Achilles).

Having "third option" choices in instances similar to the second group of choices is a cheap cop out move IMO.


Saving the council was fine, for me, because I got to feel heroic and it could be argued that potentially sacrificing yourself for the greater good was precisely what those sailors had signed up for when they joined the MILITARY. Again, this is an example of both choices being arguable since they can both be seen as morally correct at the time you make them.

The Harrowmont/Behlen thing though is kind of sadistic since your choice is between "jackass a" and "slightly less of a jackass b." I don't care, because it's still a choice between two jackasses, and I don't feel heroic no matter who I help. Both choices are morally repugnant and so I feel no particular reason to care.


Because it's not about trying to feel heroic, it's about doing what's best

Which is why I liked choices like the Council and Harrowmont/Behlen

I also liked how you get an extra choice or that extra choice taken away based on what you do. Like in the Connor choice and Rannoch

#242
Medhia Nox

Medhia Nox
  • Members
  • 5 066 messages
@Foshizzlin: You still shouldn't be reading game books and the internet to "roleplay" your character.  Your choices in game should be made "as an idealistic hero" ignorant of the outcomes your choices make.

Writing a character is awesome for those who want to (I know the whiny backlash is coming from someone) - I just don't consider it RPing at all.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 02:24 .


#243
Zu Long

Zu Long
  • Members
  • 1 561 messages

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

It's not ad hominem because I was never even arguing with him to begin with. In fact, I agree with lots of what he is saying here.

So no, it's not a personal attack in an attempt to bring down his argument. It's genuinely asking whether he can truly profess to know about this stuff (as he does on the very first page of this thread.)

The reason he became involved in this discussion at all is because he spoke about the connor choice on the first page as if he knew about it.

And from him being on these forums for a while and several people pointing it out to him, I have my doubts that he plans to play the games.



I even suggested that he watch this particular choice on youtube, to get a feel of where we are coming from, but he ignored that evidently.


Hmm. Well, if he's not planning on playing the game, the question of what he's doing here is legitimate, but I dunno. If I go back and read over the comments it definitely feels like his viewpoint is being dismissed out of hand because he hasn't played the first dragon age game, not just by you but by others as well. It just rubbed me the wrong way I suppose.

#244
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 275 messages

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Foshizzlin: You still shouldn't be reading game books and the internet to "roleplay" your character.  Your choices in game should be made "as an idealistic hero" ignorant of the outcomes your choices make.

Writing a character is awesome for those who want to (I know the whiny backlash is coming from someone) - I just don't consider it RPing at all.


Why should my choices be made as an idealistic hero? If my choices *should* be made down one psychological path, then there's no real purpose in presenting a choice, now is there?

#245
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

I'm not sure I can. A choice has lots of value when you make it before you find out the consequences, true. But when the consequences are seen, the value of said choice is either validated or not.

The Anvil is a hard decision to make. All throughout the game, you aren't sure if saving it was right or wrong. Then the epilogues happen and you can see that even if you destroy it, it still winds up causing some harm and still leaves the dwarves with no answer to the ever-encroaching darkspawn with the shortest Blight in history just getting over. And if you preserve it, it can do huge amounts of damage... but it also helps the dwarves recover lost Thaigs and give them a shot at both reclaiming their empire and beating back the Darkspawn threat.

Those consequences made both decisions viable for me.

Finding out that no matter what I do, a Reaperized-Rachni Queen exists to plague the galaxy invalidated the Rachni Queen choice. The fact that the game also then makes the cloned Reaper Queen more dangerous, in that the Rachni workers you get as an EMS eventually rebel and harm the crucible is just more salt on the wound of deciding to "play it safe" by "eliminating the Rachni threat."


So it's more, of the "choices and consequences" that comes up, your preference lies solely in the choices and really shouldn't dwell on the consequences at all?


Choices have value as choices alone... but when the game finally does reveal the consequence, it can't help but retroactively give or reduce value of that choice.


I understand this, and I think there's a place for both. For instance, one aspect I did like about ME3's original ending was that not only can each choice be reasoned as the correct one, we have to make the choice the same way that Shepard does: never knowing the consequences of the choice. This was powerful for me.

At the same time, having who I could choose to send into the tubes in ME2 was a great system as well. Thane died... which sucked. It solicited an emotional response out of me (which is one of my "reward" mechanics I get out of games, regardless of the emotion). It also reinforced "Make sure to not make that mistake again.

Yes, after the fact I learned that I could have everyone survive by making better choices, but that didn't diminish the effect of having Thane die and I happily kept playing that playthrough (and enjoyed the Kirrahe aspects of ME3 to boot).

#246
ManchesterUnitedFan1

ManchesterUnitedFan1
  • Members
  • 1 312 messages
Well I'm sorry if it came across that way; I believe that we have legitimate reasons for saying those things.

Especially if he won't even watch the choice on youtube for Ch****'s sake.

#247
Medhia Nox

Medhia Nox
  • Members
  • 5 066 messages
@o Ventus: He asked about roleplaying an idealist. Please scroll up.

If you want to play as say... a Renegade - you should do so because you want to, not so you can get the best possible ending.

@Allan Schumacher:  The suicide mission was great in ME2.  My only request would be to make something like that with more variables so mistakes are a touch more common. 

I'd love to see something like this is DA:I

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 02:31 .


#248
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Stella-Arc wrote...

-snip-


If you are going to start insinuating I don't know how to roleplay a game or that I should stop playing Bioware games, then our conversation here is done.

Pointing out an obvious slant on the writers to favor one set of choices/behavior types is not in the least bit demonstrative of how or why I play video games. So, kindly, buzz off.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 août 2013 - 02:33 .


#249
Sylvianus

Sylvianus
  • Members
  • 7 775 messages
I had absolutely no choice except one in Rannoch, there was no dilemn. Disappointing. I like waiting in front of my TV for five minutes scared by my decision. And funnily enough, my female shepard encouraged the Quarian to be at war with the Geths. She destroyed the Geth in M2. From this basis I didn't have a choice to make, there was already the option to make peace. If you have the possibility to make peace, why would you choose to destroy one side when you need both of them against the reapers ? The other choices are irrelevant.

There should have been something like, " Geth and Quarians won't ever cooperate together, don't do it shepard, too dangerous, they can't live together  " At least I would have hesitated a long time.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 août 2013 - 02:34 .


#250
Guest_EntropicAngel_*

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

Allan Schumacher wrote...


At the same time, having who I could choose to send into the tubes in ME2 was a great system as well. Thane died... which sucked. It solicited an emotional response out of me (which is one of my "reward" mechanics I get out of games, regardless of the emotion). It also reinforced "Make sure to not make that mistake again.


This always amazes me, because on my very first ME2 run, with essentially no knowledge of Bioware, the only person I lost was squishy Mordin.