237 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Having characters outright say "If only we had spared X" or "God, you shouldn't have done Y" isn't good writing, don't try to defend it.

I got that for rewriting the geth, and that was fine. In any case, you have to expect that kind of thing coming from people who'd invested in the thing you threw away, and I'd expect you to go into the situation knowing that would happen.

Rather one-sided, isn't it?

You don't play Paragon. Why do you care what we get?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm really pressed for time here, so I only could comment on this one item, because I think it is imortant.

Forging a character identity under duress is, oftentimes, the ONLY TIME many people ask these questions. I realize that, to you, it is a matter you partake in before you even start the game up (if possible, given the data you have before starting the game), but many people do not do this, ever.

Better to put them in a position where they need to ask themselves such a question under duress rather than simp encourage them to not ask it at all.

I knew there was a reason I didn't like people.

I often start with a single principle, but the decision-making later is simply a matter of determining that principle's relevance to the question at hand.  I've explained before how I played a Warden whose primary interest was the preservation of private property rights.  So every choice he made, he made with that in mind?  Mages?  Slavery is the theft of labour, so he supported free mages.  That merchant in Lothering?  He'd bought the goods fairly, so he could set the prices as he saw fit.  That character saw himself as correcting wrongs throughout Ferelden - always acting the good guy, even when he chose what some would call the evil option (like helping the Lothering merchant).

I have another character who was defined by his adherence to duty and loyalty.  But to whom?  That was obviously going to crate conflict later, so I worked out a hierarchy of his loyalty, so I knew exactly who trumped whom.  And sometimes the companion banter swayed him.  In Redcliffe, Sten made a compelling argument that this character should not risk his life saving the town.  He realised he'd been about to make a terrible mistake, and was grateful to Sten for helping him make the right decision, for his loyalty to the Wardens and their commitment to stopping the blight took precedence over saving the lives of the villagers.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:13 .

[Gwydden]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Having characters outright say "If only we had spared X" or "God, you shouldn't have done Y" isn't good writing, don't try to defend it.

I got that for rewriting the geth, and that was fine. In any case, you have to expect that kind of thing coming from people who'd invested in the thing you threw away, and I'd expect you to go into the situation knowing that would happen.

Rather one-sided, isn't it?

You don't play Paragon. Why do you care what we get?

I doubt many of the ones who play Mass Effect more than once stick to Paragon/Renegade in every single playthrough.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

You don't play Paragon. Why do you care what we get?

I played Paragon but it's because it correlates to the Renegade experience.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:18 .

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You don't play Paragon. Why do you care what we get?

I played Paragon but it's because it correlates to the Renegade experience.

If you want to say the Paragon experience should be worse, feel free, but I won't agree. I like it as-is.

[Wulfram]

Dave of Canada wrote...

But when the entire point of BioWare's decision-making comes up to doing something which is ideal and doing something to mitigate the damage should the ideal solution fail, it comes to the point that the ideal route is the only worthwhile one.

Personally, I absolutely loathed having all my decisions invalided and everyone calling me an idiot throughout the Mass Effect series because I decided that I didn't want to press the blue options. The fact that their writing is transparent in twisting the knife is just worse.

Well, leaving aside the whole Paragon/Renegade thing, I think that's more an argument for making the choices being about what you value, rather than making them be about guessing whether a risk will pay off.  Particularly since the assessment of that risk tends to rely on you being in the same mindset as the writers.  So make the costs and benefits associated with the choice clear up front, and no one should suffer buyers remorse.

Dave of Canada wrote...

I also
don't think every choice should be about what's more moral. There's
nothing wrong with a choice where one choice is obviously the good one,
and one choice is obviously the selfish one.

Which
ultimately is the purpose of side-quests, I feel. Most of the
characterization in the main quest should be about your methods and how
you achieve your end goal, whatever that goal may be. Large decisions
which have an actual impact in how your organization is viewed by the
world, your subordinates, etc.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're saying that good/selfish choices are best left to sidequests I don't think I agree.  You just need to make the rewards of selfishness pretty decent - a throne is always fun, if awkward for sequels - and don't make them inherently in conflict with achieving the overall mission.

I thnik the end choice of KotOR was one of the better ones in Bioware games.  There's no ambiguity that the dark side choice is evil, but it's still pretty damn satisfying.  At least until the sequel.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you want to say the Paragon experience should be worse, feel free, but I won't agree. I like it as-is.

So you're fine with punishing one side of the paradigm, just not the one you're playing?

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If you want to say the Paragon experience should be worse, feel free, but I won't agree. I like it as-is.

So you're fine with punishing one side of the paradigm, just not the one you're playing?

I do not care what happens to the side of the paradigm that I don't play. If you want to end perfectly with human iron fists crushing all resistance (which you can do, really, in Control), that's entirely your business.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Why is everybody getting so mad that people don't play games their way? Or don't have the same morality they do? Or like what other people don't like?

Stop hating people for liking what you don't like dammit!

[Xilizhra]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why is everybody getting so mad that people don't play games their way? Or don't have the same morality they do? Or like what other people don't like?

Stop hating people for liking what you don't like dammit!

This is off topic, but I'm unable to see your name now without thinking of Darth Baras.

[Maria Caliban]

I felt Renegade was poorly developed. How does 'willing to be ruthless to get the job done' equate with 'racist?'

In ME 1 there was a Renegade only quest where you were told that the Alliance wanted to bargain with a pirate. You get there and he insults you, but the Renegade option is to shoot him. How does murdering the man you've been told to bargain with get the job done?

So it's not 'willing to commit violence to get the job done' but 'committing violence even when that goes directly against your goals.'

[wolfhowwl]

As an aside, I believe Admiral Hackett wanted that guy dead and sent you because he knew you'd blow your top in the negotiations and start shooting.

But yes, the morality in Mass Effect was poorly defined. The ghost of Kotor's light side/dark side had not been exorcised.

From what I remember Open Palm/Closed Fist also failed with it being reduced to the usual good vs. evil choices.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, leaving aside the whole Paragon/Renegade thing, I think that's more an argument for making the choices being about what you value, rather than making them be about guessing whether a risk will pay off.

Which I'm not a big fan of.

Destroying the Collector Base should've resulted in more people dying to Reapers but Cerberus was never empowered and could been crushed in ME3.

Sparing the Collector Base spares people's lives as the technology is used for the war effort but Cerberus grows stronger and can cause large problems post-war.

... rather than both decisions just boiling down to whether or not you like the color red or blue.

Particularly since the assessment of that risk tends to rely on you being in the same mindset as the writers.  So make the costs and benefits associated with the choice clear up front, and no one should suffer buyers remorse.

Somewhat agree. Things like Bhelen and Harrowmont weren't upfront but the consequences were clear when people looked back on it, I'm a big fan of subtle writing like that. However, I'd love to see the consequences being quite clear but the player isn't ready until they actually witness it.

I loved whoever wrote the scene where you shoot Mordin, I'd love to see a lot more of that spread out so people feel terrible about their decisions and reflect upon them.

"Am I doing the right thing? Is this worth it?" etc. Walking Dead and Game of Thrones RPG handled this brilliantly.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're saying that good/selfish choices are best left to sidequests I don't think I agree.

I feel most of them should, large decisions (Mage/Templar, Dalish/Werewolves, Connor, Dwarves, Anvil, etc) should largely have some bigger focus than self-interest. Self-interest should be secondary to that, asking Teagan for a reward shouldn't directly tie into the Connor choice.

Although you're right, Dark Side ending was pretty kickass.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I felt Renegade was poorly developed. How does 'willing to be ruthless to get the job done' equate with 'racist?'

In ME 1 there was a Renegade only quest where you were told that the Alliance wanted to bargain with a pirate. You get there and he insults you, but the Renegade option is to shoot him. How does murdering the man you've been told to bargain with get the job done?

So it's not 'willing to commit violence to get the job done' but 'committing violence even when that goes directly against your goals.'

It's true that "renegade" isn't an especially coherent philosophy, but I don't really see this as a problem.  Just pick the renegade choices that fit your character and not the ones that don't.

(It gets a bit of a problem when the game starts penalising you for a lack of sufficient devotion to this incoherent philosophy, but I only really think that was a problem in ME2.  And it's unlikely to be an issue in DA games, since they don't do alignment meters.)

[Cainhurst Crow]

Pure renegade is chaotic evil, and paragon is every other alignment blended into making a semi-coherant philosophy.

You can see where this might cause some problems to unfold.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Xilizhra]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Pure renegade is chaotic evil, and paragon is every other alignment blended into making a semi-coherant philosophy.

You can see where this might cause some problems to unfold.

Paragon seems pretty consistently neutral good.

[Dave of Canada]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Wait, the Game of Thrones game was actually good? I'd heard it was supposedly terrible; maybe I'll try it out some time then if that's not the case.

Didn't like the gameplay until I neared the end but I enjoyed the story, the whole shifting perspectives idea was interesting.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 septembre 2013 - 11:01 .

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Pure renegade is chaotic evil, and paragon is every other alignment blended into making a semi-coherant philosophy.

You can see where this might cause some problems to unfold.

Paragon seems pretty consistently neutral good.

Not at all. It's definitely chaotic neutral. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I thnik the end choice of KotOR was one of the better ones in Bioware games.  There's no ambiguity that the dark side choice is evil, but it's still pretty damn satisfying.  At least until the sequel.

I don't see the Dark Side choice at the end of KotOR as being unequivocally evil.  There are very good reasons to oppose the Jedi after what they did to the PC's mind (who can be trusted with that kind of power?), and while the entire galaxy is terrified of the PC at the end, it's never established beyond doubt that the PC's motives in using the Star Forge are self-serving.

[Steelcan]

Paragon is lawful stupid/stupid good 9/10 times

[TheKomandorShepard]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Pure renegade is chaotic evil, and paragon is every other alignment blended into making a semi-coherant philosophy.

You can see where this might cause some problems to unfold.

rather not chaotic evil more chaotic neutral but he have sometimes tendecy to chaotic evil actions (like unnecessary and malicious actions just for fun)   because renegade often that killing is best solution renegade shepard still cares about alliance but is utopia justify means.

Steelcan wrote...

Paragon is lawful stupid/stupid good 9/10 times

Nope lawful stupid is when character follows 100 % law when it is pure idiocy or leads to disaster for example shoot your mother because she throw paper on grass and stupid good is when for example character refuse to kill even somone will kill him or give big bad machine of destrucion because he said that he won't hurt anyone.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 19 septembre 2013 - 11:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I often start with a single principle, but the decision-making later is simply a matter of determining that principle's relevance to the question at hand. 

And yet, as intriguing as all of that sounds, people just flip on the game and say "pander to me." So poking these players out of their usual habits of hero worship and simply being a stereotypical "good guy" may need to become priorities for a developer before they can even begin to assume players are going to have such high levels of complexity in character crafting. 

So I guess what I'm saying... is if you hope for developers to keep flexible enough in terms of roleplaying freedom to continue to support (either implicitly or explicitly) your level of craft, it may serve your best interests to ensure that Bioware does anything and everything to make their players think about their own characters and their own mindsets, because otherwise, the lowest common denominator is going to be quite low. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 11:11 .