310 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

One of my main problem with ME3 was the lack of varying outcomes for major choices.

- If you didn't keep Mealon's data, you shouldn't have had to the option to cure the genophage.
- If you saved the Rachni queen you should have had to deal with new Rachni in ME3, if you killed her that mission should have been replaced with something else.
- If you killed the council it should have been more difficult to earn the aid of other races. If you saved the council perhaps you deal with descension among humans past Udina,

etc

[David7204]

Well, I dunno about Maelon's data. There would need to be more foreshadowing in ME 2 for a choice with that big of a punishment. As it is, it's treated as a fairly minor choice. You don't want the player accidently damning the krogan thinking they're making a minor choice that won't affect much.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 11:44 .

[Il Divo]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong.

They were wrong.

The problem with ME wasn't that it gave you options that were wrong, it was that 99.9999% of the options were right.

You cannot have meaningful choices if all possible consequences must be equal to one another.

Dues Ex: HR lets you install a new biochip that will remove all your augmented abilities at a specific points. Why? Because sometimes a choice should lead to a seriously good outcome and sometimes a choice should lead to a kick in the teeth.

See, that's a perfect example of a choice that I think was handled very badly, because (in large part) it depends on the player ignoring incredibly obvious evidence of said consequence. You run into about a million emails in Tai Yong Medical all expressing surprise at the new biochip being sent out the door, without examination. Even players who aren't hackers are exposed to these emails relatively easily.

It's the same kind of cut-scene foolishness that allows the player to realize very early on that Adam is Patient X, especially if doing most of the side missions and reading emails, . I don't find playing purposely obtuse to have much role-playing value.

In this case, implanting the biochip fell right along Adam's ignorance of his identity as being a "too dumb to function" moment in Deus Ex. Sure, I could make Adam get the biochip "upgrade", but it lacked emotional significance, since I (as the player) was purposely messing around.

[Ianamus]

Aaleel wrote...

One of my main problem with ME3 was the lack of varying outcomes for major choices.

- If you didn't keep Mealon's data, you shouldn't have had to the option to cure the genophage.

etc

I disagree storngly with this one, as the ethical issue raised in Mordins personal quest in ME2 wasn't "Is it right to cure the genophage?" but "Is it right to use data gained from killing these Krogan females in horrific ways?". My Shepard came to the conclusion that even though he didn't support the genophage the methods used to obtain the data were just too vile. His research had to be destoryed.

And my Shepard in ME3... "Oh but Wrex! I've learnt now that ALL species have the right to LIVEEEEEE!!" 

<_<

Modifié par EJ107, 21 août 2013 - 11:56 .

[Fast Jimmy]

First of all, 'the game' does not 'TELL you' that killing the Rachni is the best choice.

The Rachni, if spared, are captured and subjugated by the Reapers to kill the galaxy. Just as many who supported the choice said was very likely. This cannot be avoided.

That the developers copped out narratively with a clone even if you did kill the queen does not negate that fact - the Rachni were a danger to the galaxy and returned to being tools of the Reapers, just like they were in the Rachni Wars. I don't see how anyone can say that saving them was the smart choice, aside from the lop-sided logic the ME3 team introduced into the story.

We have this thing called encryption. Have you never used online banking? There are so many fairly simple ways the data could be very easily secured. It's perfectly safe on the Normandy

Yes, yes... because there aren't examples of identity theft and online banking security breaches...? And no system is secure. Even the best systems and protections are open to the human element - just look at Edward Snowden and the NSA leak.

But you ARE right about the Normandy. I mean... it isn't like there are bugs and hacks in every computer and terminal, or the possible presence of an galactic-renown thief on board, or an unavoidable seizure of the ship by alien forces. If any of THAT was going on, that could possibly be a real threat. But it's good that they don't do any of that in ME2 after you acquire the cure... right?

Secondly, you seem to be supporting my argument. I actually agree that pointless Renegade choices should led to more negative consequeces. That being pointless rude and hostile to your squadmates should lead to negative consequences.

But the game doesn't. And it then does penalize you for making arguably (not definitively, just arguably) smart decisions. That's poor design on both fronts.

[Aaleel]

EJ107 wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

One of my main problem with ME3 was the lack of varying outcomes for major choices.

- If you didn't keep Mealon's data, you shouldn't have had to the option to cure the genophage.

etc

I disagree storngly with this one, as the ethical issue raised in Mordins personal quest in ME2 wasn't framed as "Is it right to cure the genophage?" but "Is it right to use data gained from killing these Krogan females in horrific ways". My Shepard came to the conflusion that even though he didn't support the genophage the data could be useful the way it was obtained was just too vile. His research had to be destoryed.

And my Shepard in ME3... "Oh but Wrex! I've learnt now that ALL species have the right to LIVEEEEEE!!" 

<_<

But Mordin also says that the data cuts years off the time it would take to make a cure.  Stick to that, don't make the the difficult choice to keep it given how it was obtained mean pretty much nothing.  I know it makes some difference but not as much as you were lead to believe it would.

Modifié par Aaleel, 21 août 2013 - 11:49 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Il Divo wrote...

Should be more clear:

when I say one-dimensional, I mean in the sense that one alignment (typically Paragon) would result in superior moral consequences, almost every time. In terms of how choices were often presented (as opposed to their consequences) I thought ME did a good job of giving both Paragon and Renegade the spot light.

In comparison to KotOR, I will say that I felt a bit more comfortable with creating a character who chose different Paragon and Renegade combinations. Your character didn't have quite the same bipolar element as light side and dark side where you flip-flop between murdering wookies and donating money to the poor.

Agreed, with ME and DA I find the choices are more about governing the tone of your story while still having you basically play the hero. Whatever happens you are there to save the day, there is no option to take over from the bad guy and rule in his place. There's a dividing line with those two Bioware games. In earlier ones you could be a lot more self interested, from there on you could be a very grubby hero, but you were still going to be the hero.

They also thankfully disposed of those last minute choices where regardless of what had gone before you could jump to light or dark. Thinking about it the ending of ME3 feels like a bit of a throwback to that - not light/dark, but a sudden choice that disregards previous actions.

Modifié par Narrow Margin, 21 août 2013 - 11:49 .

[David7204]

It sounds to me that you basically agree with what I'm advocating. That good, smart choices should lead to good outcomes and bad, dumb choices should lead to bad outcomes. That they shouldn't be ambiguous. That heroism should be meaningful. We're only disagreeing with what's smart and what's not.

- I'm not killing the Rachni after seeing indoctraination and knowing her story is very plausible. They're not going to become a galactic threat from one mother anytime soon. She has more to offer the galaxy then she would offer the Reapers.

- I could write a few paragraphs going through different ways data can be secured. There are a lot. Suffice it to say, it could easily be done. And even in the worst case scenario of the krogan obtaining it, they're not becoming a galactic threat within a few years again either. The cure isn't even complete.

- When Shepard opened the arms during ME 1, she thought Saren was dead. He's no longer at the console. He's no longer fiddling to open the Citadel relay. So Sovereign was stuck to the Citadel, so what? It's worth saving the Council and the crew.

- Cerberus is not the only organization with the resources to save humanity.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 12:01 .

[Huzzahfortimelines]

I actually like the fact that you don't have any consequences. Especially for the mage, if you enter the Fade to fight/deal with the demon, no one will ever know you did something bad. Personally, I'd say it's a great roleplaying moment, and while I would like a hint at it in DA:I, I think it wouldn't fit if there were direct consequences.

[Ianamus]

Aaleel wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

One of my main problem with ME3 was the lack of varying outcomes for major choices.

- If you didn't keep Mealon's data, you shouldn't have had to the option to cure the genophage.

etc

I disagree storngly with this one, as the ethical issue raised in Mordins personal quest in ME2 wasn't framed as "Is it right to cure the genophage?" but "Is it right to use data gained from killing these Krogan females in horrific ways". My Shepard came to the conflusion that even though he didn't support the genophage the data could be useful the way it was obtained was just too vile. His research had to be destoryed.

And my Shepard in ME3... "Oh but Wrex! I've learnt now that ALL species have the right to LIVEEEEEE!!" 

<_<

But Mordin also says that the data cuts years off the time it would take to make a cure.  Stick to that, don't make the the difficult choice to keep it give how it was obtained mean pretty much nothing.  I know it makes some difference but not as much as you were lead to believe it would.

I know. I was just furious that was the only way I was allowed to justify my decision to Wrex. I didn't make the decision because I didn't want the genophage cured, but because Mordin said that the research was dangerous and involved experimenting on live krogan women.

But I had to watch my Shepard proclaim he was some genocidal idiot who had "seen the light". It was only time in the Mass Effect series I felt so severly detatched from my Shepard he may as well have been an NPC. 

Anyway, It should have been clearer what the issue was and what the implications would be. Having it make the genophage incurable would have only made it worse. 

Modifié par EJ107, 21 août 2013 - 11:55 .

[BlueMagitek]

Ya'll realize that this is a Dragon Age topic right?

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

Fast Jimmy, you do know that even if you make both Legion and Tali stand down, you can still fail to get the peace option? And if you didn't, you can still get the peace option? 

To get the Peace option you need to meet certain requirements:

1. You need AT LEAST 5 points by the time you reach the decision. These points depends on whether or not you imported from ME 2. Here are the breakdown for the points in ME 2 that you can get:

-Did you re-wrote the Heretics? If you did, 0 points.
-Did you destroy the Heretics? 2 points.
-Was Tali exiled (or didn't do her mission)? 0 points.
-Was Tali NOT exiled? 2 points.
-Did you broker peace between Tali and Legion? 1 point.

ME 3 you can get up to 2 points but even if you did, you need to have completed Legions Rannoch mission, if not then the option won't even appear. You also need FOUR FULL REPUTATION BARS filled up to even have a chance of getting the Peace option. Oh, and Tali and Legion MUST both be alive. 

So...no. Making Tali and Legion play nice doesn't give you the peace option. 

EDIT: On-topic:

I didn't mind that there was an option to have a "happy" outcome in Redcliffe. If I worked my ass off to get it, then it was EARNED. I will admit that there should have been some other hurdles but getting rid of a "win-win" situation is not the way to go. I don't want every choice I get to be a pyrrhic victory. That was what DAII did. 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 22 août 2013 - 12:04 .

[Il Divo]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Agreed, with ME and DA I find the choices are more about governing the tone of your story while still having you basically play the hero. Whatever happens you are there to save the day, there is no option to take over from the bad guy and rule in his place. There's a dividing line with those two Bioware games. In earlier ones you could be a lot more self interested, from there on you could be a very grubby hero, but you were still going to be the hero.

They also thankfully disposed of those last minute choices where regardless of what had gone before you could jump to light or dark. Thinking about it the ending of ME3 feels like a bit of a throwback to that - not light/dark, but a sudden choice that disregards previous actions.

Very well put. The bolded especially does a much better job than I have so far of explaining the key problem.

Even the staunchest Renegade comes off as superior (morally-speaking) to a Dark Side playthrough of KotOR, simply on the grounds that the former is acting with some sort of greater goal in sight.

In KotOR, even if the galaxy didn't get a happy ending, you at least felt equally successful as the Light Side character because you both achieved your respective goals (they just happened to be totally different).

This begins to break down a bit more in Mass Effect, where things are meant to be a bit more ambiguous. When both Paragon and Renegade are largely concerned with preserving the galaxy while employing different means. It's more disappointing to play as a Renegade there, where the player is ostensibly trying to save the Galaxy, but simply does it worse than the Paragon. By comparison, you have two protagonists of vastly different competency, which is far less enjoyable.

[ScarMK]

Another thread derailed by David. Classic.

OT, While I agree that something SHOULD'VE happened in that quest, I can't say it really bothers me that it's a roses and rainbows ending.

[David7204]

It does no such thing.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Il Divo wrote...

This begins to break down a bit more in Mass Effect, where things are meant to be a bit more ambiguous. When both Paragon and Renegade are largely concerned with preserving the galaxy while employing different means. It's more disappointing to play as a Renegade there, where the player is ostensibly trying to save the Galaxy, but simply does it worse than the Paragon. By comparison, you have two protagonists of vastly different competency, which is far less enjoyable.

I was going to disagree, but thinking about how I played it, I tended to make the renegade choices on the smaller decisions. Those of a more wide reaching scale were usualy paragon. Which is to all intents and purposes a bad tempered paragon approach, so you may have a point!

[Sylvianus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Ya'll realize that this is a Dragon Age topic right?

I think it's fair to talk about Mass effect, as a failure in this area.

[Ianamus]

They just need to make the "everybody is happy" result difficult to obtain, and I'm not only talking about being dependent on prior choices but through gameplay elements as well.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution had a brilliant segment where you could listen to your crashed pilot and flee, leaving her to die, or stay with her kill all the enemies attacking her. The latter was very difficult gameplay-wise. I myself had to try it multiple times and load prior saves to do it, but It felt like I had really earnt it when I finally managed to save her.

I'd love to see more things like that in Dragon Age. We can get the happy result, but only if we really have to work for it.

Modifié par EJ107, 22 août 2013 - 12:13 .

[Stella-Arc]

Jayne126 wrote...

Just take the third choice "everyone is happy" away. It nullifies the whole choice part.

No, it does not. It's basically a "reward" for the player if he met the requirements to get it. To get a "good option", there needs to be obstacles. If those obstacles were overcome, then the player earned that option. The only problem I had with the whole Connor quest is the fact the A) Connor is awake and if you didn't do the Circle quest before heading to Redcliffe then the option to "save everyone" should not be available since it would take too long to deal with. Those were the only things I had thought that were ridiculous. I believe that it would have been better if we had:

1. Wynne in the party so that she can probably make Connor go to sleep (for a TIME) and...
2. The Circle quest should have been completed before heading to Redcliffe (sided with the mages)

Redcliffe doesn't seem all that far away and they are located right next to Lake Calenhad. Maybe there could have been a quest to save/help a fishermen during the "Save Redcliffe" quest and if suceeded, he would lend you his boat so that you can get there on time. 

Only having "option a or option b" cheapens the whole experience. If you worked hard to achieve "option c", why should you be penalized for it? That is not to say that ALL quests should have an "option c". 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 22 août 2013 - 12:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Stella-Arc wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

Fast Jimmy, you do know that even if you make both Legion and Tali stand down, you can still fail to get the peace option? And if you didn't, you can still get the peace option? 

To get the Peace option you need to meet certain requirements:

1. You need AT LEAST 5 points by the time you reach the decision. These points depends on whether or not you imported from ME 2. Here are the breakdown for the points in ME 2 that you can get:

-Did you re-wrote the Heretics? If you did, 0 points.
-Did you destroy the Heretics? 2 points.
-Was Tali exiled (or didn't do her mission)? 0 points.
-Was Tali NOT exiled? 2 points.
-Did you broker peace between Tali and Legion? 1 point.

ME 3 you can get up to 2 points but even if you did, you need to have completed Legions Rannoch mission, if not then the option won't even appear. You also need FOUR FULL REPUTATION BARS filled up to even have a chance of getting the Peace option. Oh, and Tali and Legion MUST both be alive. 

So...no. Making Tali and Legion play nice doesn't give you the peace option. 

I did know that, but you could have easily not done Legion's side quest due to the Collector's invading the Normandy and you going after them the first chance you get. Or you could have re-written the heretics, thinking it was better to save them rather than to competely eradicate them. Or you could have not done the side quest to save the Quarian commander. 

Point being, very random, highly unrelated events allow that option to unlock. Granted, many people had made those decisions during the course of ME2 and ME3, but it was less of a choice and more of a "Get Out of Jail Free card" that most anyone who had it available took advantage of. Which was, in my opinion, less of a choice and more of an auto-win situation.

[David7204]

They're not unrelated. Saving Legion, making sure Tali isn't exiled, making sure Tali and Legion get along, and making sure the quarian fleet is well prepared are all choices the player can expect to affect the quarian-geth conflict.

[Teahuppoo]

i hate when we can just save everyone. someone has to die

[HiroVoid]

Teahuppoo wrote...

i hate when we can just save everyone. someone has to die

That's what renegade Shep is there for.

[Fast Jimmy]

Stella-Arc wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

Just take the third choice "everyone is happy" away. It nullifies the whole choice part.

No, it does not. It's basically a "reward" for the player if he met the requirements to get it. To get a "good option", there needs to be obstacles. If those obstacles were overcome, then the player earned that option. The only problem I had with the whole Connor quest is the fact the A) Connor is awake and if you didn't do the Circle quest before heading to Redcliffe then the option to "save everyone" should not be available since it would take too long to deal with. Those were the only things I had thought that were ridiculous. I believe that it would have been better if we had:

1. Wynne in the party so that she can probably make Connor go to sleep (for a TIME) and...
2. The Circle quest should have been completed before heading to Redcliffe (sided with the mages)

Redcliffe doesn't seem all that far away and they are located right next to Lake Calenhad. Maybe there could have been a quest to save/help a fishermen during the "Save Redcliffe" quest and if suceeded, he would lend you his boat so that you can get there on time. 

Only having "option a or option b" cheapens the whole experience. If you worked hard to achieve "option c", why should you be penalized for it? That is not to say that ALL quests should have an "option c". 

I don't think those are good choices. They are just reasons for people to complete the main quests in a certain order, giving the best possible outcome through metagaming.

Bhelen and Harrowmont is the best example of a tough choice. As is the Anvil. There's very strong reasons to go one way or the other. And there is no magic third option that makes everything hunky doory.

That's why the Orzammar seciton of DA:O is my favorite of possibly any Bioware game - it is gritty and there aren't too many clear cut answers. 

If you choose Harrowmont, bad things happen to people. Arguably, VERY bad things. If you pick Bhelen, he becomes a tyrant that seizes more and more power and acts with reckless abandon... but, at the same time, he makes life for the very worse off in Orzammar better and he expands dwarven culture to the surface. 

Is Harrowmont's brand of lesser bad, but maintaining a status quo better than Bhelen being a power-hungry maniac who actually winds up doing some good? THAT'S a debate. THAT'S a choice.

Would saving the Anvil, securing one of the only sure-fire ways to keep the dwarves from succumbing to the darkspawn and giving them unfettered access to the Surface, be worth the fact that many dwarven souls could be tied to the Anvil for all eternity? Is the eternal suffering of a few worth saving the lives of an entire race? THAT'S a debate. THAT'S a choice.

Saying "I'll make sure to get Wynne first so she can cast a magic spell to make things safe" or "let's save some fisherman to win the day" is not a choice. It is different venues to a happy ending. Which is fine, but the options of blood magic shouldn't even be offered in that case. Because they offer no value other than "evil for the lolz," because there are totally valid options that are being advertised as the "solution with no costs" alternative. And that devalues the choices themselves to the point where offering darker choices just seems cartoony and schtick.