AlanC9 wrote...
Wait... your actual position is that the more important a decision is, the more it needs to have a golden perfect option?
iakus wrote...
My position is the more important a decision is, where a sacrifice is going to be forced, the more options need to be available to make such a choice palatable.
CronoDragoon wrote...
I can't help but feel desperation in the request to be able to talk with the geth and/or EDI before Destroy happens. Had they included a scene where the geth approve or demonstrate their understanding of your decision, would it really gel with their portrayal in the rest of the series? The geth are often portrayed as extremely selfish, and necessarily so, since no one has looked out for their interests the whole series except perhaps Shepard. They would choose Synthesis, full stop. EDI would as well.
It'd feel insulting to me. The two viable scenarios for Destroy from a design perspective are sacrificing the geth and EDI knowing they'd choose Synthesis, or not including their sacrifice at all. Approval that goes against character portrayal would be even worse. It'd be character assassination combined with sacrifice.
CronoDragoon wrote...
More options were available, just that none of them were palatable. I don't think your dissatisfaction stems from lack of options but rather the nature of the options given.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
AlanC9 wrote...
iakus wrote...
And the handling of the choice was still done better. You get a last talk with the person you leave behind. You can apologize, or try to reassure them that you'll try to save him.her too. It didn't shrink from showing the one you left behind was missed. And afterwards there's a chance to reflect on the loss.
Heck I love how Shepard can later say "Kaidan's death is on me!"
I coukd have done with a bit less foreshadowing myself, and the actual implementation of the choice is awfully clunky.
CronoDragoon wrote...
iakus wrote...
My position is the more important a decision is, where a sacrifice is going to be forced, the more options need to be available to make such a choice palatable.
More options were available, just that none of them were palatable. I don't think your dissatisfaction stems from lack of options but rather the nature of the options given.
iakus wrote...
But if none of the options were palatable then there weren't enough options.
iakus wrote...
And given EDI's repulsion of the Reapers and the geth's assertion that there would be no further dealings with the Old Machines makes me think they could in fact be shown to approve of Destroy if they were made aware of it.
AlanC9 wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
iakus wrote...
My position is the more important a decision is, where a sacrifice is going to be forced, the more options need to be available to make such a choice palatable.
More options were available, just that none of them were palatable. I don't think your dissatisfaction stems from lack of options but rather the nature of the options given.
It's not like MEHEM adds options.
We mean in the sense of strictly killing the Reapers or getting all synthetic life destroyed as well? Cause I'm hesitant to say they'd apporve of the later, especially if they knew synthesis was on the table.dreamgazer wrote...
iakus wrote...
And given EDI's repulsion of the Reapers and the geth's assertion that there would be no further dealings with the Old Machines makes me think they could in fact be shown to approve of Destroy if they were made aware of it.
Both EDI and Legion's comments throughout the game reinforce this, to a point where notifying them would almost be redundant.
iakus wrote...
Which is kind of funny, given I feel EDI's character is assassinated in Synthesis.
And given EDI's repulsion of the Reapers and the geth's assertion that there would be no further dealings with the Old Machines makes me think they could in fact be shown to approve of Destroy if they were made aware of it. Just as Ash and Kaidan show approval of going to rescue the other.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:29 .
AlanC9 wrote...
iakus wrote...
But if none of the options were palatable then there weren't enough options.
You seem to be deliberately conflating numbers and palatability. I don't see why.
iakus wrote...
More different options increases the chance of generating a conclusion given players would like. Some people choose Ultimate Sacrifice in DAO. But not all. And the game doesn't force three different version of it on you.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:27 .
Greylycantrope wrote...
We mean in the sense of strictly killing the Reapers or getting all synthetic life destroyed as well? Cause I'm hesitant to say they'd apporve of the later, especially if they knew synthesis was on the table.dreamgazer wrote...
iakus wrote...
And given EDI's repulsion of the Reapers and the geth's assertion that there would be no further dealings with the Old Machines makes me think they could in fact be shown to approve of Destroy if they were made aware of it.
Both EDI and Legion's comments throughout the game reinforce this, to a point where notifying them would almost be redundant.
Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:41 .
dreamgazer wrote...
Who knows what direction the geth would go if they were made aware of all three options; they have conflicting ideas about all three dogmas of thought, just like the range of organics probably would.
CronoDragoon wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Who knows what direction the geth would go if they were made aware of all three options; they have conflicting ideas about all three dogmas of thought, just like the range of organics probably would.
So tying this back to iakus' wish to see explicit approval of choosing Destroy: if one can already envision accepting Destroy as in-character for the geth and EDI (I don't but fair enough) then a scene showing this should not make a moral difference to the player.
Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:42 .
dreamgazer wrote...
iakus wrote...
And given EDI's repulsion of the Reapers and the geth's assertion that there would be no further dealings with the Old Machines makes me think they could in fact be shown to approve of Destroy if they were made aware of it.
Both EDI and Legion's comments throughout the game reinforce this, to a point where notifying them would almost be redundant.
Daemul wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Both EDI and Legion's comments throughout the game reinforce this, to a point where notifying them would almost be redundant.
What sort of awful logic is this? You could justify any sort of atrocity with this sort of reasoning. Bloody hell.
Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:50 .
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
You seem to be deliberately conflating numbers and palatability. I don't see why.
More different options increases the chance of generating a conclusion given players would like. Some people choose Ultimate Sacrifice in DAO. But not all. And the game doesn't force three different version of it on you.
Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:55 .
EntropicAngel wrote...
Same. that first choice where they argue about who should go (and the one picked waxes nostalgic right there in front of you) was far too obvious. and it makes no sense why ashley, a soldier, cannot retreat with kirrahe while fighting. or kaidan the biotic.
AlanC9 wrote...
Daemul wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Both EDI and Legion's comments throughout the game reinforce this, to a point where notifying them would almost be redundant.
What sort of awful logic is this? You could justify any sort of atrocity with this sort of reasoning. Bloody hell.
Yes. If the consequences of not committing the atrocity were dire enough, you could.
AlanC9 wrote...
That depends on the design goals, doesn't it? If the design intent is to not give you what you consider a palatable choice, increasing the number of choices only increases your chance of getting a palatable outcome slightly, since you're essentially hoping for the developer to make a mistake.
It's not an accident that Destroy was made unpalatable for you..
CronoDragoon wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Who knows what direction the geth would go if they were made aware of all three options; they have conflicting ideas about all three dogmas of thought, just like the range of organics probably would.
So tying this back to iakus' wish to see explicit approval of choosing Destroy: if one can already envision accepting Destroy as in-character for the geth and EDI (I don't but fair enough) then a scene showing this should not make a moral difference to the player.
Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2014 - 07:17 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
That depends on the design goals, doesn't it? If the design intent is to not give you what you consider a palatable choice, increasing the number of choices only increases your chance of getting a palatable outcome slightly, since you're essentially hoping for the developer to make a mistake.
It's not an accident that Destroy was made unpalatable for you..
A design goal to not make palatable chocies doesn't strike me as a good business strategy for a developer of games that tout the importance of choice.
Remember when games were made with the intent to be fun?
iakus wrote...
Remember when games were made with the intent to be fun?
Retour en haut