1331 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Well you could say that the Cure kinda does backfire depending on who you have leading the Krogan (Wrex or Wreav)

But I get what your saying though, they should've touched on the risks more

I felt it odd that ME2 explained in great detail that Wrex was rebuilding Krogan society to manage the Genophage and he'd be assassinated otherwise, it left a sour taste in my mouth that you couldn't let Wrex keep building his new Krogan society and had to either cure it (which led to a happy ending for everyone involved) or not and killing Wrex.

Yea, that scene felt wrong when I saw it

But ever since ME1 I knew Bioware was gonna think about a cure in the later games

[In Exile]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

As a general rule, you can't create an enemy that has actual deathcamps and perpetrates a holocaust, and then except players to not lose it completely when the game tries to justify them. 

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

No, it's not earned. Does a film require anything of the audience? Any problem solving, any skill, any merit? No. Anyone can watch a film, and different people can get entirely different things from it. Very meaningful things. Does that meaning need to be 'earned'?

No. It doesn't.

Don't tell me you just compared a video game that allows you to make choices to a movie. Please tell me this is an illusion and you just did not compare an interactive story to a non interactive story.

[TheBlackBaron]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While I like the idea of difficult choices and less than ideal solutions, I'm also okay with giving them to the player sometimes.  If the player has the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will never really work out, then that is analogous to the expectation that attempting to put in extra effort will always work out.

I'm not cynical to the point that I want every positive decision to backfire, I just don't want all of them to succeed. The side which manages risks loses value when none of the risks are... well, risky. Some decisions should backfire for both sides, some should benefit individual sides at the cost of everyone's opinions and some should be like TWD's locker scene which the same thing occurs but there's a severe difference in people's opinions after the decision.

Just my opinion on the subject though.

Edited: Added some stuff.

ME3 tended to have a fairly poor track record of this, it must be said. 

The Rachni, for example, came back no matter what, essentially invalidating what was presented as a major choice and argued heavily for months on end on the BioBoards. The choice gets repated, wherin again taking the risk of letting the queen go again leads to the best outcome. Or BDtS's resolution, where Balak becomes a war asset if he was released (or more accurately, allowed to escape). 

On the whole, it tended to skew very heavily in favor of risk-taking. 

David7204 wrote...

The reality is that this would almost certain lead to consequences that would infuriate players.

This is where you not actually playing games hurts your credibility. A lot. 

[Br3admax]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Why should the "heroic" path be best?  why can't all paths have pros and cons?


wait......why am I trying to ask you anything reasonable?

pls don't huskify me

This. Seriously. Everything shouldn't be one sided and their shouldn't be some optimal, "Be heroic path." Should there be a better ending, sure. Say Thedas buring over it not burning, with the Inquisition growing powerful. But there should not be a, "You didn't side with the mages, now the world hates you, murder," path. It's one sided and shows that the other player's choices are much more invalid just because they didn't agree with the author on what is more moral. 

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, as you and others did for years? It's possible, yes.

I've never wanted one optimal path over the years we've been arguing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:28 .

[Xilizhra]

Estelindis wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As it stands, I have no problem with happy endings, bittersweet ones, or both being in the same game. The one thing I do have a problem with is people trying to cut me off from having my preferred endings because they want their preferred endings to be the only ones. As such, my preference is for both optimal and suboptimal playthroughs to be available, for the players to choose between.

Also, is it me, or is David talking about something completely different from those arguing with him?

I agree about the endings in one sense and disagree in another.  I agree in the sense that I think a game is better for having more ending options than fewer ones.  I disagree in the sense that I feel like having an ending that is optimal for all players in a very clear way implies that this is the ending everyone should be aiming for, which, in a sense, really gives the game only one ending.  I think it's better if there are different endings that appeal to different people as optimal.

I suspect, but can't be sure, that you're right about David arguing something different from those disagreeing with him.

Again, which ending is optimal will differ based on character and playthrough.  Many people don't want happy endings, after all.
For some reason, most of these people are also pro-templar, which makes me think that we could make the mage ending happy and the templar one bittersweet to satisfy the majority.

I've never wanted one optimal path despite the years we've been arguing.

From what I recall, you didn't want to play through an optimal path, and I have no problem with this. However, you also wanted to prevent me from having one, and that, I did have a problem with, as mentioned prior.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:28 .

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

This is true. They needed to foreshadow the Reapers as having sympathetic qualities, at least in potentia, far earlier.

I disagree

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave of Canada wrote...

David7204 wrote...

And that's good.

I disagree. We're back to square one.

No, it's at least useful to get an understanding where each side is coming from.  You can understand that he considers it value added because it's what makes the game appealing to him.

THat's not to say the perspectives must be reconcilable (I am guessing that they're not), but unless the hope was to get someone to concede their position and agree with the other side (which is typically futile), I know I can at least better understand where David is coming from even if he and I want different things out of our games.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Why should the "heroic" path be best?  why can't all paths have pros and cons?


wait......why am I trying to ask you anything reasonable?

pls don't huskify me

It depends on your opinion and agency. For instance, you might just want the mages dead, Annul the Circle, and call that optimal.

That is not what optimal means. Why must you always make up definitions for words? Just use the actual ones.

Except David and you would be the first ones to come and rage on these
forums if the path opposite of yours was optimal and your path was
sub-optimal.

Ah, as you and others did for years? It's possible, yes.

/implying that your path is the optimal one and that is what people are angry over.

Modifié par Br3ad, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Xilizhra wrote...

This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

This is true. They needed to foreshadow the Reapers as having sympathetic qualities, at least in potentia, far earlier.

Or, and this is where we'll disagree, they needed to cut the sympathetic qualities from the Reapers entirely, especially since by the point of the endings, there was literally no sympathetic quality to the Reapers in the entire trilogy. I'm fine with Control (even if I don't agree with it), but I believe synthesis should not have existed. We've discussed this before, such as we have now on how the narrative and themes of the trilogy simply don't support it (especially since the particular issue had already been narratively and thematically resolved at Rannoch), to the parts where the writers {pardon me Allan} came up with a frankly poorly written and executed concept that simply makes no sense within the realms of biology, logic, or meta-ethics as well as blatantly violating and contradicting not only established lore, but basic scientific laws of physics.

And in place of cutting synthesis, they could have had options to destroy or control the Reapers in different ways similar to the ending of DA:O. You could have Shepard accepting Cerberus methods and Reaper tech to destroy the Reapers (this would amount to the Dark Ritual), Shepard rejecting those methods (and this is the paragon here) and valiantly sacrificing himself to destroy the Reapers, have a more neutral ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of the vast majority of the galaxies fleets and the squad (you can combine this with Cerberus methods or Reaper tech which could tie into Control as well) to destroy them, down to a failure ending where the Reapers do win entirely. Of course, you'd have to implement the Crucible into this too since I believe in keeping the Reapers at a level where they cannot be defeated conventionally.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:35 .

[David7204]

I would never go into a game like Spec Ops: the Line or Kane and Lynch and expecting heroic decisions to pay off. That would be silly. And so I don't play those games. (Pretend those games have choices.)

However, I am completely justified in expecting heroism to exist and to be effective for BioWare games.

The reason why is simple. BioWare has gone out of it's way to portrays themes of heroism and power. The trailer for Dragon Age is filled to the brim with such themes. They've promised a powerful, competent character whose choices matters. Not a tired old soldier whose life sucks and wants to die.

And so I'm justified to expect a powerful character whose heroism matters. Not a tired old man.

Modifié par David7204, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:30 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

To put it another way, I would like it if David's optimal path of heroism continues to occur in subsequent games. Those who don't like to follow it may find other paths.

Why should the "heroic" path be best?  why can't all paths have pros and cons?


wait......why am I trying to ask you anything reasonable?

pls don't huskify me

It depends on your opinion and agency. For instance, you might just want the mages dead, Annul the Circle, and call that optimal.

I don't want an option with no negative side effects

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It may be obvious.  For some people it may not be (I know some people couldn't save both).

For others, maybe they'd prefer it to be less obvious.

bit of a tangent but i'm not sure there's an effective degree of 'not obvious' for players who are accustomed to game cues. meaning I'm not sure there's a way to make things less obvious but not to the point of being obtuse.

[Xilizhra]

David7204 wrote...

I would never go into a game like Spec Ops: the Line or Kane and Lynch and expecting heroic decisions to pay off. That would be silly. And so I don't play those games. (Pretend those games have choices.)

However, I am completely justified in expecting heroism to exist and to be effective for BioWare games.

The reason why is simple. BioWare has gone out of it's way to portrays themes of heroism and power. The trailer for Dragon Age is filled to the brim. They've promised a powerful, competent character whose choices matters. Not a tired old soldier whose life sucks and wants to die.

And so I'm justified to expect a powerful character whose heroism matters. Not a tired old man.

David, to clarify since you haven't played the games (they're good, I recommend them): you're more or less right. DAO lets you pretty much ooze heroism from all possible orifices; it just gets a little bit hazy in Orzammar. DA2 certainly lets you act heroically and have greatly upstanding morality, which doesn't punish you any; it's just that the game as a whole is rather more tragically bent than DAO. However, you can still eke out a decent win at the end, at least in my opinion.

I don't want an option with no negative side effects

Then don't take them, and we all win.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:31 .

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

I would never go into a game like Spec Ops: the Line or Kane and Lynch and expecting heroic decisions to pay off. That would be silly. And so I don't play those games. (Pretend those games have choices.)

However, I am completely justified in expecting heroism to exist and to be effective for BioWare games.

The reason why is simple. BioWare has gone out of it's way to portrays themes of heroism and power. The trailer for Dragon Age is filled to the brim with such themes. They've promised a powerful, competent character whose choices matters. Not a tired old soldier whose life sucks and wants to die.

And so I'm justified to expect a powerful character whose heroism matters. Not a tired old man.

Sorry but there is no rule that writers must promise you a story about heroism, nor is heroism as simple as you think. The ending of P3 is extreamly heroic, you would however hate it because what happens, so would alot of people on the bsn, but it is still heroic.

That does not mean any writer has to live up with a promise oyu created yourself to deleiver heroism.

[Plaintiff]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This can backfire of course for narrative things like the Reapers being sympathetic, especially when it is so suddenly and jarringly heaped on the player after 2.9 games told and showed you how bad, irrational, destructive, and pointless the Reapers are and why, for the good of the galaxy, they need to be destroyed.

This is true. They needed to foreshadow the Reapers as having sympathetic qualities, at least in potentia, far earlier.

Or, and this is where we'll disagree, they needed to cut the sympathetic qualities from the Reapers entirely, especially since by the point of the endings, there was literally no sympathetic quality to the Reapers in the entire trilogy. I'm fine with Control (even if I don't agree with it), but I believe synthesis should not have existed. We've discussed this before, such as we have now on how the narrative and themes of the trilogy simply don't support it (especially since the particular issue had already been narratively and thematically resolved at Rannoch), to the parts where the writers {pardon me Allan} came up with a frankly poorly written and executed concept that simply makes no sense within the realms of biology, logic, or meta-ethics as well as blatantly violating and contradicting not only established lore, but basic scientific laws of physics.

Why does Mass Effect have to acknowledge "basic scientific laws of physics"? Science Fiction flouts scientific 'laws' pretty much all of the time.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

From what I recall, you didn't want to play through an optimal path, and I have no problem with this. However, you also wanted to prevent me from having one, and that, I did have a problem with, as mentioned prior.

Therein lies the problem. You seem perfectly fine in wanting an optimal solution in everything you do and everyone who disagrees with you gets less-than-stellar results but misunderstand our position, we--or atleast, myself--don't want only one "side" to have optimal results. I'll dismiss the fact that you believe your side is the only one that deserves optimal results.

Considering you brought up mages and the "happy ending" again, I'll use it as an example:
Mages shouldn't get a happy ending.
Templar shouldn't get a happy ending.

They should get endings which are the culminations of their decisions, the sacrifices made and the things they've done in the name of their own beliefs.

David7204 wrote...

However, I am completely justified in expecting heroism to exist and to be effective for BioWare games.

Have you played anything from BioWare aside from Mass Effect?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:34 .

[Xilizhra]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Morality meters like the Paragon and Renegade system are terrible and I hope Bioware drops them in subsequent Mass Effect games?

Why?

They inhibit role playing by rail roading you down a path (which often conflicts with its own message) so you can unlock persuasion abilities that should be a separate skills entirely. This is why Origins has a far better system than either DA2 or ME

ME3 more or less abandoned the system for a neutral "reputation" meter, where Paragon and Renegade were largely cosmetic stats.

[wolfhowwl]

Xilizhra wrote...

As it stands, I have no problem with happy endings, bittersweet ones, or both being in the same game. The one thing I do have a problem with is people trying to cut me off from having my preferred endings because they want their preferred endings to be the only ones. As such, my preference is for both optimal and suboptimal playthroughs to be available, for the players to choose between.

Doesn't sound like much of a choice.

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

I would never go into a game like Spec Ops: the Line or Kane and Lynch and expecting heroic decisions to pay off. That would be silly. And so I don't play those games. (Pretend those games have choices.)

Wow, if being heroic is why you won't play a game, then really, you aren't playing anything so you have nothing to bring about what DA should do.  

However, I am completely justified in expecting heroism to exist and to be effective for BioWare games.

Contrary to just about every BioWare game, not that you would know, having never played them.

The reason why is simple. BioWare has gone out of it's way to portrays themes of heroism and power. The trailer for Dragon Age is filled to the brim with such themes. They've promised a powerful, competent character whose choices matters. Not a tired old soldier whose life sucks and wants to die.

The games are not, and the trailers are not for that matter. The theme has always been, "Do what must be done." More often than not, blindly paragon-like decisions will curse you later. Again, something else that you would know if you actually played the game.

And so I'm justified to expect a powerful character whose heroism matters. Not a tired old man.

You are justified to expect what you want. That does not mean that you are justified to recieve it. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 31 octobre 2013 - 05:35 .