310 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, your squad continually saved your life throughout the entire series, which seems meaningful. The rest is admittedly sort of abstracted into war assets, but it all still decidedly mattered.

Not really.  Just play MP and you are set.

[Sylvianus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sylvianus wrote..

We need to be very careful about throwing the word 'realism' around here. I don't want there to be an implication that having your heroism and choices count for nothing is a more 'realistic' story. Because it isn't.

What is realistic however is that for each action and choice from a hero, there could be good and bad consequences according to different areas, positives and bad reactions from different people. It it rarely perfect.

Rannoch and its outcome.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 août 2013 - 03:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

This argument is now going in circles and I've seen where this song goes on the BSN (and elsewhere...)

Best summation: people like different things and are often satisfied by different things. That doesn't make either perspective right or wrong. Just personal.

Locking.

[David7204]

EntropicAngel wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's not anywhere even remotely close to good enough. Every ally, every friend, every ship, and every triumph throughout the series should have counted for a hell of a lot more than protecting the Crucible for 30 seconds.

Meaningless subjective statement. Fact: No organic in the MILLIONS OF YEARS the Reapers have been reaping has managed to build the Crucible and gather the galaxy and successfully activate the Crucible.

Shepard's heroism was meaningful.

Look, the Crucible was stupid. It was. I've defended ME 3 countless times, but it's a complete mess.

There are so many problems that crop if you think too hard about why it actually worked.

[Stella-Arc]

LPPrince wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But why even offer the option of saving the day of doing something else, when saving the day is clearly the best option? What's wrong with just making a mandatory moment of glory?

Because a player should be given the option of failure.

I don't think they should rewrite something or limit it in some way just because they think a player will reload to get a better outcome. If that happens, let it happen.

I still disagree with the fact that Hawke's mom couldn't be saved. That she was going to be able to be saved, but testers tried to go back to save her so the option to save her was removed.

I mean, dang. There was nothing good that happened in DA2 except maybe the end result of Act 2. Sibling dies in the beginning because of your choice of class(whaaa), other sibling you lose regardless of choice through the game, mother is lost regardless of choice, Chantry is blown to smithereens regardless of choice, etc etc etc

Then you have ME3 which we were told would not have "ABC endings".

True. They were RGB. And they all sucked.

I don't see the point in choices if they all end in either the same thing happening or all end up with some sacrifice occurring.

I should be able to work hard enough to earn happily ever afters.

Whaaa? 

Is this true? If they had given us that one, teeny option, I would have had some hair left by the time I finished DAII. But I have to agree with you. DAII had choices but hardly any consequences of varying types.

-Kill the Magisters son? Nothing happpens. Well, you do see Lia as a guard so I guess credit where credit is due. 
-Saved Katojen? He dies. Do not save him? He dies.
-Can't save your mother. At all.
-Templars do nothing when you mention that Anders is up to something.
-Kick Anders out of your party or refuse his quest? He comes back and still blows up the Chantry.

And there are more. A nice balance of no-win situations, work-your-ass-off-good-situation, and a pyrrhic situation. A good balance is what is needed. 

[Raging Nug]

I feel like most of the time this is only a problem if you aren't doing a blind playthrough. It's one thing to know that you have option C in the connor example, but on my first playthrough this was difficult for me because I was unfamiliar with the mechanics. I didn't know if leaving Redcliffe was safe, or if Connor would sit idly by while I went to pick up the mages. There was the reward Allan was talking about because I felt immersed and invested in the world, and worried about the consequences of my decisions (because at the time there wasn't a 'right' choice - just choices).

Knowing retroactively how the game works and what impact your choices will and won't have feels a lot like metagaming.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, your squad continually saved your life throughout the entire series, which seems meaningful. The rest is admittedly sort of abstracted into war assets, but it all still decidedly mattered.

Not really.  Just play MP and you are set.

Meaningless to the story.

Rannoch and its outcome.

Is not Paragon/Renegade dependent. It's also not perfect; the war still did a lot more damage than was close to optimal to both sides before it was stopped.