242 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

While I do want Bioware to include more difficult decisions and more grey decisions I don't want a repeat of ME3's ending. I still can't decide which was the best outcome, because I completely despise every possible outcome. It's arguably a difficult decision because of that, but I wouldn't argue that it's a good decision.

I think that the genophage and Rannoch missions were handled brilliantly though. It was possible to get a "optimal outcome" on the Rannoch mission, but was very particular about what you had to have done in the previous games to achieve it. And while it was possible to get a 'good' ending to the genophage mine resulted in the death of both Eve and Mordin.

The ending really does just leave a bad taste in my mouth though. I do like happy endings, and I did want an ending where Shepard and his LI were both alive, but the point is that since that means so much to me there were a multitude of things I would have willignly sacrificed in order to achieve that ending. I think that the option for "happy/ideal" outcomes should be possible, but that something somewhere else should be sacrificed in order to achieve it.

Modifié par EJ107, 27 novembre 2013 - 03:40 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Those decisions should not be too difficult. If they are, either Bioware can't handle it or a big percentage of fans can't understand it. It will be problematic.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

[Lebanese Dude]

EJ107 wrote...

While I do want Bioware to include more difficult decisions and more grey decisions I don't want a repeat of ME3's ending. I still can't decide which was the best outcome, because I completely despise every possible outcome. It's arguably a difficult decision because of that, but I wouldn't argue that it's a good decision.

I look at it differently. The ME3 ending forced me to reasses how I approach decision-making.

Perhaps you should try that as well. If there is always an outcome that you feel is best, you will always take it if you can. I find that diminishes the value of the choice.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Morality is part and parcel of roleplaying games. Relying solely on logic and resources belong to RTS games.

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 novembre 2013 - 03:45 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lebdood wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Morality is part and parcel with roleplaying games. Logic and resources belong to RTS games.

Not really. I prefer playing as amoral characters who couldn't care less about morality, and only see things in terms of strategic value to their goal.

[dreamgazer]

Not listen to bleeding hearts, and utilize restraint and practicality.

[Squall2.0]

Perhaps a decision where doing the right thing costs your character somthing that is imprtont to him/her. I didn't go through with Morrigan's ritual, and because of that my character lost his best friend. The choice would have to be set up in a way that the player character knows that doing the right thing will cost them.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Morality is part and parcel with roleplaying games. Logic and resources belong to RTS games.

Not really. I prefer playing as amoral characters who couldn't care less about morality, and only see things in terms of strategic value to their goal.

Amorality is a type of morality. It just means you are ruthless in your decision-making, which is a respectable approach.

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 novembre 2013 - 03:50 .

[Muspade]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Not really. I prefer playing as amoral characters who couldn't care less about morality, and only see things in terms of strategic value to their goal.

That does not, however, call for only having decisions revolve around resources/logic.

[Imryll]

Choices will always have consequences. Those needn't, however, be negative. Positive consequences have meaning also.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

But a decision between sacrificing your waifu or enslaving and cursing 10 people with a magical power for a cause will be motivating!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

But a decision between sacrificing your waifu or enslaving and cursing 10 people with a magical power for a cause will be motivating!

Well, my waifu's welfare is part of my goal. And an indispensable one. If 10 people have to die for her, they die. I have no remorse.

[Ianamus]

Lebdood wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

While I do want Bioware to include more difficult decisions and more grey decisions I don't want a repeat of ME3's ending. I still can't decide which was the best outcome, because I completely despise every possible outcome. It's arguably a difficult decision because of that, but I wouldn't argue that it's a good decision.

I look at it differently. The ME3 ending forced me to reasses how I approach decision-making.

Perhaps you should try that as well. If there is always an outcome that you feel is best, you will always take it if you can. I find that diminishes the value of the choice.

ME3's ending gave me a serious case of Darkness-induced audience apathy. I hated every outcome so much that there may as well have not been a decision, and I just stopped caring about the universe as a whole. I completely disagree that an outcome you think is best diminishes chocies- I'd argue that having no choice you remotely like diminishes choice. If you feel the same about every outcome of a choice then what was the point of making it at all?

You need to give people a choice that they like/agree with or they won't have any desire to make the choice in the first place. If people don't want to even bother making a decision because everything ends up in the ****e no matter what they do then people just stop caring.

Modifié par EJ107, 27 novembre 2013 - 03:59 .

[Aaleel]

It has to be a grey area and there can't be an underlying out clause thrown in. No going to get lyrium from the mage tower, either use blood magic or kill the boy for example.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

But a decision between sacrificing your waifu or enslaving and cursing 10 people with a magical power for a cause will be motivating!

Well, my waifu's welfare is part of my goal. And an indispensable one. If 10 people have to die for her, they die. I have no remorse.

OK, I make it harder.

I should raise the number to 100 and it requires to deceive them (to come to a feast or something). At the end they will be part of a magical ritual!
This ritual is for a cause and needs blood magic. Those 100 people will turn into some kind of semi-undead.

Or you can sacrifice your waifu companion, because she has enormous power and can be used in the ritual alone, but she will die.

I can guess your answer, but others should get terrified by these options!

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

I'd rather have moral choices be about what ends you're after, rather than do "ends justify the means" type ones.

Could you give an example of what you mean? I think I get it intuitively, but I'm having a hard time coming up with how it would look in practice. 

And I want to avoid ending up with just having endless repetitions of the Trolley problem with ever increasing stakes and different window dressing.

I agree with you here. The problem is what the moral dillema would look like. Would you consider the destroy vs. rewrite the heretics to be a trolley problem?

[Lebanese Dude]

EJ107 wrote...

ME3's ending gave me a serious case of Darkness-induced audience apathy. I hated every outcome so much that there may as well have not been a decision, and I just stopped caring about the universe as a whole. I completely disagree that an outcome you think is best diminishes chocies- I'd argue that having no choice you remotely like diminishes choice. If you feel the same about every outcome of a choice then what was the point of making it at all?

You need to give people a choice that they like/agree with or they won't have any desire to make the choice in the first place. If people don't want to even bother making a decision because everything ends up in the ****e no matter what they do then people just stop caring.

You are dramatizing the ending by making it seem that it was always an incredibly negative outcome. That is plainly wrong. Each had their pros and cons. Some were more radical than others, but in the end it was always you saving the galaxy.
None of the endings were "Go-to" endings. That is a strong point of the narrative, in my honest opinion.

Perhaps you would be more satisfied if you set the bar a little lower, and realized that the ending was actually a reality check that many players failed to pass.

I'm sorry you didn't find any sort of closure with any of the endings. I suppose my having played the game after EC was released provided me with a cleaner approach to the ending.

In my case, I picked Destroy, not because I thought it was the only ending that I loved, but because it was the only one that got me closure. Sometimes, that's what all the story needs.

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 novembre 2013 - 04:21 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

But a decision between sacrificing your waifu or enslaving and cursing 10 people with a magical power for a cause will be motivating!

Well, my waifu's welfare is part of my goal. And an indispensable one. If 10 people have to die for her, they die. I have no remorse.

OK, I make it harder.

I should raise the number to 100 and it requires to deceive them (to come to a feast or something). At the end they will be part of a magical ritual!
This ritual is for a cause and needs blood magic. Those 100 people will turn into some kind of semi-undead.

Or you can sacrifice your waifu companion, because she has enormous power and can be used in the ritual alone, but she will die.

I can guess your answer, but others should get terrified by these options!

Yep...

Those 100 people are dead. 

Ever hear of the unfettered?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 27 novembre 2013 - 04:23 .

[CronoDragoon]

In Exile wrote...

Could you give an example of what you mean? I think I get it intuitively, but I'm having a hard time coming up with how it would look in practice.

To simplify and somewhat rewrite ME3's endings, the broadest philosophical interpretation could be seen as order vs. chaos as formulated by the Catalyst. Had the choice been assuming Control of the Reapers to prevent organic/synthetic war or destroying the Reapers and chancing extermination, one could see the choice as one of ends and not means.

Now, I'm not sure the question of means to ends can ever be separated with ends in a moral choice. In the example above order necessarily will always infringe upon personal liberties regardless of the circumstances. Similarly, in order to preserve freedom you risk quite a bit. I don't think the questions of "what do you want to achieve?" and "what are you willing to do to achieve it?" can be separated in a meaningful choice.

But I do think that it's possible for a choice to center around "ends" if the "means" to achieve either are acceptable. Perhaps the Awakening choice represents this. The means are relatively tame; you either let the Architect go or you kill him (and he's not exactly an innocent). The important part is what you hope to achieve.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 novembre 2013 - 04:34 .

[CronoDragoon]

Lebdood wrote...
I'm sorry you didn't find any sort of closure with any of the endings. I suppose my having played the game after EC was released provided me with a cleaner approach to the ending.

Probably. I played it on release with the original endings and they were much darker. And when they weren't dark they were unclear and confusing. Personally I think closure is a non-issue with the EC endings. My only remaining problem with it is that I think they did a poor job balancing Destroy with the other endings in picking destroying all synthetics. I think it would have made more sense thematically to have Destroy destroy the relays while the others didn't, while avoiding unfortunate connotations of racism (species-ism?) and undermining the "free to choose" theme of Destroy by invalidating your Rannoch peace (if you made peace).

[Hazegurl]

I think what they need to do is give consequences and benefits for making each decision and leave it up to players to determine if they are willing to live with it. The problem is when the bleeding heart choice becomes the auto best choice. Like with Connor, it makes no sense to leave a demon that attacked a village to run around loose just to travel to the tower and do a long mission (if you haven't done it) and then return and save the boy. Sacrificing the mother means nothing, you can only rp as blood magic is evils. I typically kill the boy as it just makes the most sense to do, esp. if I have the ashes in my pocket. And still even that choice means nothing.

As much as I like Alistair, him hating me is not a serious consequence of such a decision.

They need to stop making the "happy ending" choice so clear cut. I loved that nice guy Harrowmont was a crap choice as a ruler.

[9TailsFox]

Karlone123 wrote...

A choice between two things, choose one, gain it but lose the other and vice versa. A choice without consequence is just a meaningless one.

There's a lot of people who will disagree including me. Like Mass Effect Citadel DLC No SPOILERS so who played it know what i mean, you choose between saving person or killing, maybe it doesn't matter for you what you pick outcome is the same but for me it means everything, i would never pick kill option. maybe except if he was actually evil not just sad.

[leaguer of one]

Look at Legion's house divided mission.....Just like that with out the paragon/renegade points.

[Aaleel]

Lebdood wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

ME3's ending gave me a serious case of Darkness-induced audience apathy. I hated every outcome so much that there may as well have not been a decision, and I just stopped caring about the universe as a whole. I completely disagree that an outcome you think is best diminishes chocies- I'd argue that having no choice you remotely like diminishes choice. If you feel the same about every outcome of a choice then what was the point of making it at all?

You need to give people a choice that they like/agree with or they won't have any desire to make the choice in the first place. If people don't want to even bother making a decision because everything ends up in the ****e no matter what they do then people just stop caring.

You are dramatizing the ending by making it seem that it was always an incredibly negative outcome. That is plainly wrong. Each had their pros and cons. Some were more radical than others, but in the end it was always you saving the galaxy.

That's not entirely true and this was my main problem with the ending.  Aside from the picking the lesser of three evils, you didn't save the galaxy.  You were defeated and dying and the enemy saved your life and LET you win, almost a pity victory.  

As far as the choice itself, I can admire the there's no victory without sacrifice angle but the consequences for all the choices were just so over the top and bad.  But at the end of the day that was secondary to my main problem.