129 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Of course not. This is not about that but this:
(1) I can't even mention a moderate choice. That is a roleplaying flaw if that moderate choice is an obvious and plausible one.
(2) Yet again, one decision where the writers contrive circumstances to prevent the obvious moderate option from working is ok. When this becomes a pattern, however, it reflects badly on the believability of the world and prevents players from getting any satisfaction from their choices. And no, being able to make satisfying choices in personal matters is no acceptable substitute.

1.The point was not have a moderate choice. It's not a case that it a flaw to have one but there is no real pros or cons argued on if things are just being depicted with moderate choices.
2.Again, It's about having the player awnser the  persoanl question on hand. What would be the point of asking the player a question to debate about if and easy awnser is always avalible? It's about what a person is able to control. In some sistuations you can control things to an extent, in others you can't. The genophage cure plot works because it make you deal with an issue you can't full control most of the points and sides on hand.

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...



@wright:
I agree to some extent: if the debate had been less ideologically loaded the choice might've felt less extreme, but I still think there is a need to explicitly explain why an obviously better moderate choice can't be taken.

It's because of the indivisual being effected by the choice. What they want makes the choice more complex, not the cure itself.The korgan only want the cure if all their race is cure and they won't move for that point, the salarian delatrass won't help if you do what the krogan want.

The only way you can have a moderate choice if one of the 2 sides step down but it not a case where ether side wants to or a chance to see why they should with the geth and quarians.

Since you can't convince one side to back down it's impossible to have a moderate choice.

[Sanunes]

I don't think the problem is the choice itself being extreme, but the outcome of that choice. I haven't had a problem with any of the choices in the games themselves, but leaving a choice that can be so divergent between each of the Mass Effect games it always left me with the feeling it wouldn't play a major role in the next game.

Using ME2 as an example, I don't mind the choice of keeping or destroying the Collector Base, but instead of having Cerberus flying to it if you pick destroy, the "releasing control" part will start an unstoppable self-destruct of the base itself so really at the end of the game the base will always be destroyed, but we did have the choice of picking what we wanted to see.

(Just to note, it took me several tries to read through the entire OP. People kept actually needed me to do my work the gall).

[leaguer of one]

Sanunes wrote...

I don't think the problem is the choice itself being extreme, but the outcome of that choice. I haven't had a problem with any of the choices in the games themselves, but leaving a choice that can be so divergent between each of the Mass Effect games it always left me with the feeling it wouldn't play a major role in the next game.

Using ME2 as an example, I don't mind the choice of keeping or destroying the Collector Base, but instead of having Cerberus flying to it if you pick destroy, the "releasing control" part will start an unstoppable self-destruct of the base itself so really at the end of the game the base will always be destroyed, but we did have the choice of picking what we wanted to see.

(Just to note, it took me several tries to read through the entire OP. People kept actually needed me to do my work the gall).

The thing is not everything is with in the players control. If you keep the base in ME2....How are you going to stop cerberus from using it, especially if Alliance or coucui is not allow to send ships in the terminus?

Modifié par leaguer of one, 24 février 2014 - 02:07 .

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

esper wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

You are limiting yourself needlessly. There is no need to restrict the number of options to two, and no need to make one choice better than the others in an objective, countable way. Also note that I haven't argued for options with no downside. Instead, I have argued that the possible downsides should not contaminate the options to such an extent that none of them feels worth taking.

What contaminate a choice is individual. I never falter in my belief that the mages are where in the right at the end game, no matter how many crazy blood mages they threw at us, because it was Anders who blew up the chantry and not the circle and thus I would never get behind siding with the templars in that situation (expect that one time for achievement which i reloaded afterwards). '

To some extent it's individual, yes, but as i said: I am firmly convinced most players aren't extremists. It's fine if those extreme choices are present for those who like them, but in general players shouldn't be forced down the same path in every big decision they make.

As for you general OP, I think it was right to remove the middle ground at the end of da2. The 'not my busniness' option actually exist, but Meridith simply says that means you side wiht the mages in her eyes. Basically outside circumstance means that the less extreme options are no longer viable and that does happens sometimes.

I don't mind this happening occasionally. I mind that the extreme choices have become a pattern to the extent that it makes me feel as if I'm forced to play an extremist in Bioware's games if I want to get any kind of real satisfaction from their endings.  

I don't want to have only such choice, but where it is propable then yes I think it is fitting, but generally I would like less choice in the end game, because I generally find the end games choice artificial. What I want to see is an end game consequence of your prior choices and only have and big end game choice for those who wavered doing the game and thus have no clear loyalty.

That's a different problem. I would actually prefer that the endgame plays out as a result of decisions made earlier, but that would just move the big decisions somewhere else.

I think the two problems are related. By always having a big final choice, some of them is going to be artificial and with a computer the choice will always be limited and if bioware wants the extreme options to be viable the neutral can't be viable as well, At the end of da2 it was obvious that they wanted an either the templars or the mages choice and thus outside forces (Meridith and Anders) made you pick.

My ideal da2 end would have been like this: 

Pure pro-mage choices or mostly pro-mage choice wiht Anders/Merrill as Li or mostly pro-mage choice with a mage Hawke:

- Meridith accusses you of this being your plan and being an accomplice with Anders (wherever this is true or not).
- Meridith points out you have always been leaning towards pro-mage and takes your own magic or your lovers as proof of your protection of apostates.

As a result Meridith tries to annul you with the circle and you have to defend yourself and the mages from her. Orsino and a small group of younger mages gets isolated by accident and forced into a truely desperate situation for his harvester freak out. Meridith tries to kill you by end game, but Cullen (and eventually Carver) and the rest of the templars back off because they realized fighting against the city champion is a losing battle, Cullen and Carver doesn't help Hawke in the final battle, though.

Pure Templar choices or mostly templar choice with a Fenris as Li or a Bethany in the circle:

- Orsino and the mages assumes that you yet again will side with the templars

- If Fenris is Li he makes a loud comment of this being the proof of what both of you have always believed as a combined result with you leaning towards pro-templar Orsino makes the same assumption as above.

As a result Orsino mages attacks you premediatly to give him time to get away, thus forcing you to side wiht the templars. If Bethany is the circle she will protect you here as long as you made one pro-mage choice along the way and you get the let Meridith cut her down, don't let Meridith cut her down in this scenerio. If you made a pure pro templars choice she flees with Orsino and maybe is one of the sacrifices for the harvester battle (which will play out as in the pro-templar side).

At the end game Meridith will attempt to arrest you for failing to stop Anders, Cullen will protest that this is unfair as the champion have always been a protector of the city and Meridith feeling the power over the city and her templars slipping out of her hand will betray everybody.

A mix of pro-templar, pro-mages choices:

- It happens as in the real end of da2. Meridith demans that you side with her and will not take a 'it is not my busniness' as an answer. Orsino begs you to protect them.

- If you have an Li or an Sibling in the cirlce they will attempt to persuade you to their side if you choose opposite them giving you one last chance to shift stance.

Once the side is chosen the end game will be as if one of the two extreme side where picked to minimalize the variables.

That way it would not so much be a choice between two extremes, but a result of a lot of lesser choices clayrifying why one of the two extremes happens. Then our Hawke could in the dialog in the gallows lament that they where forced into such extremes as they had never meant to go so far or fully embrace it as the only right thing.

We also know that they kept track of our mage/templar choice because an achievement existed for either.

Sometimes I think that this end game extreme choices will seem less extreme if our PC couldn't suddenly shift philosophy at the end for no good reason. I know some will like to play maginificient bastards and attempts to manipulate leaders or back out it get too extreme, but if you have only be for X the whole way, nobody on Y's side is going to believe you are suddenly for them, likewise X or Y is properly not going to allow you to back out once we get so far.

If you want to play the manipulatar and play both side, you obviously have to actually play both side and somehow makes both think you could actually support them which would land you in the middle.

Of course this is only for when we have two human-like side to join or not join. Mass Effects ending was mostly because it was not hinted that the end game was possible and thus it was never discussed prior and came out of nowhere. Sure it was thematically appropiate, but it was space magic to a degree we didn't know was possible.

Da:o problem was not so much in the choice itself (how to kill the archdemon was fair enough), but I don't think that a big final choice belong in each game. The end situations are usally high stake which means that the choices will be extreme, so having the end game be the consequence of our choice instead of a choice would often work better. Then our character could try and struggle against and attempt to back out (in vain) or accept it, depending on roleplay.

[Potato Cat]

I think potentially extreme choices are good, so long as they are grey. By this point, most have their opinions on Templars and Mages down so it would be difficult to have a grey choice there. But to me, the DR was an extreme choice and brilliantly grey for most people.

[esper]

Elfman wrote...

I think potentially extreme choices are good, so long as they are grey. By this point, most have their opinions on Templars and Mages down so it would be difficult to have a grey choice there. But to me, the DR was an extreme choice and brilliantly grey for most people.

Well the choice don't need to be grey to all players. In fact I would say that two choice which have the fanbase split between which is white and which is black is a a grey choice.

[Ieldra]

leaguer of one wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Of course not. This is not about that but this:
(1) I can't even mention a moderate choice. That is a roleplaying flaw if that moderate choice is an obvious and plausible one.
(2) Yet again, one decision where the writers contrive circumstances to prevent the obvious moderate option from working is ok. When this becomes a pattern, however, it reflects badly on the believability of the world and prevents players from getting any satisfaction from their choices. And no, being able to make satisfying choices in personal matters is no acceptable substitute.

1.The point was not have a moderate choice. It's not a case that it a flaw to have one but there is no real pros or cons argued on if things are just being depicted with moderate choices.
2.Again, It's about having the player awnser the  persoanl question on hand. What would be the point of asking the player a question to debate about if and easy awnser is always avalible? It's about what a person is able to control. In some sistuations you can control things to an extent, in others you can't. The genophage cure plot works because it make you deal with an issue you can't full control most of the points and sides on hand.

You still don't understand.

Faced with something like the genophage problem, which is presented as a problem where both sides have some merit, what's the first thing that comes into your mind as a possible solution? Isn't it "Well, try mitigating the effects and see if that works out. If it does, go one step further"?

That's really from everything we're told the best possible solution, and everyone can see it. It's glaringly obvious to anyone with two brain cells left to think with. Now, circumstances may be so that such a solution isn't available, but treating it as not even worthy of mentioning makes everyone involved look stupid. Extremism at the expense of common sense.

And please don't repeat "you're being asked a question" as if that was any kind of argument. Thematic considerations are irrelevant if they come at the expense of story, world or character consistency. We aren't playing shell games here but called to act as if we were those characters and could act within the world presented. Stupidity doesn't suddenly become less stupid because it serves a purpose.

To go one step further, if the writers contrive circumstances that make a moderate choice unavailable once, that's fine, but if that becomes a pattern it adverse affects world consistency as well, because usually things don't work that way. And if every game ends the same way and you'll always end up supporting one extremist faction over the other, there will eventually come a point where you walk away from these stories in frustation. What's the point in having a choice in the first place if they all feel stupid or bad?

[Klystron]

Dear Mr. Arishok:
I have your book. Help me b!tch-slap these pesky mages and Templars and it's yours.
Sincerely,
An adventurer who wants order instead of chaos.

  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  -- 

edit:
Granted, that's just another extreme choice. 
For the record, I'd prefer some less-extreme choices too, like an opportunity to stop Orsino from doing something stupid. 

Modifié par Klystron, 24 février 2014 - 02:17 .

[Ieldra]

Elfman wrote...
I think potentially extreme choices are good, so long as they are grey. By this point, most have their opinions on Templars and Mages down so it would be difficult to have a grey choice there. But to me, the DR was an extreme choice and brilliantly grey for most people.

By their nature, extreme choices are not grey. The DR is a fine example. It may have extreme consequences, but it is not associated with any extreme viewpoint but has risks and benefits. 

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Of course not. This is not about that but this:
(1) I can't even mention a moderate choice. That is a roleplaying flaw if that moderate choice is an obvious and plausible one.
(2) Yet again, one decision where the writers contrive circumstances to prevent the obvious moderate option from working is ok. When this becomes a pattern, however, it reflects badly on the believability of the world and prevents players from getting any satisfaction from their choices. And no, being able to make satisfying choices in personal matters is no acceptable substitute.

1.The point was not have a moderate choice. It's not a case that it a flaw to have one but there is no real pros or cons argued on if things are just being depicted with moderate choices.
2.Again, It's about having the player awnser the  persoanl question on hand. What would be the point of asking the player a question to debate about if and easy awnser is always avalible? It's about what a person is able to control. In some sistuations you can control things to an extent, in others you can't. The genophage cure plot works because it make you deal with an issue you can't full control most of the points and sides on hand.

You still don't understand.

Faced with something like the genophage problem, which is presented as a problem where both sides have some merit, what's the first thing that comes into your mind as a possible solution? Isn't it "Well, try mitigating the effects and see if that works out. If it does, go one step further"?

That's really from everything we're told the best possible solution, and everyone can see it. It's glaringly obvious to anyone with two brain cells left to think with. Now, circumstances may be so that such a solution isn't available, but treating it as not even worthy of mentioning makes everyone involved look stupid. Extremism at the expense of common sense.

And please don't repeat "you're being asked a question" as if that was any kind of argument. Thematic considerations are irrelevant if they come at the expense of story, world or character consistency. We aren't playing shell games here but called to act as if we were those characters and could act within the world presented. Stupidity doesn't suddenly become less stupid because it serves a purpose.

To go one step further, if the writers contrive circumstances that make a moderate choice unavailable once, that's fine, but if that becomes a pattern it adverse affects world consistency as well, because usually things don't work that way. And if every game ends the same way and you'll always end up supporting one extremist faction over the other, there will eventually come a point where you walk away from these stories in frustation. What's the point in having a choice in the first place if they all feel stupid or bad?

You do understand that there is no time for that with the war that's going on. You're look at this in the wrong way. What you are suggesting is something that would be done in normal situations. This is far from a normal situation. You have beings drestroying all of the intellegent life in the galexy. They have no time to test out to see what works.

And the statement of "being asked a question " is avalid point. This is a case and concept of a hypathetic question. A question base in a what if situation where you limit actions to see what you'll do and how you react. Pretending that character with in these hypathetic situation added all the more to the debate on what to do with the question asked.

And to awnser you're final quastion, it's to see how you react and define yourself in that situation. This is no different from the Kobayashi Maru test from star trek which are unwinnable. It's  about testing and even developing the playerspersonal character.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 24 février 2014 - 02:18 .

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Of course not. This is not about that but this:
(1) I can't even mention a moderate choice. That is a roleplaying flaw if that moderate choice is an obvious and plausible one.
(2) Yet again, one decision where the writers contrive circumstances to prevent the obvious moderate option from working is ok. When this becomes a pattern, however, it reflects badly on the believability of the world and prevents players from getting any satisfaction from their choices. And no, being able to make satisfying choices in personal matters is no acceptable substitute.

1.The point was not have a moderate choice. It's not a case that it a flaw to have one but there is no real pros or cons argued on if things are just being depicted with moderate choices.
2.Again, It's about having the player awnser the  persoanl question on hand. What would be the point of asking the player a question to debate about if and easy awnser is always avalible? It's about what a person is able to control. In some sistuations you can control things to an extent, in others you can't. The genophage cure plot works because it make you deal with an issue you can't full control most of the points and sides on hand.

You still don't understand.

Faced with something like the genophage problem, which is presented as a problem where both sides have some merit, what's the first thing that comes into your mind as a possible solution? Isn't it "Well, try mitigating the effects and see if that works out. If it does, go one step further"?

That's really from everything we're told the best possible solution, and everyone can see it. It's glaringly obvious to anyone with two brain cells left to think with. Now, circumstances may be so that such a solution isn't available, but treating it as not even worthy of mentioning makes everyone involved look stupid. Extremism at the expense of common sense.

And please don't repeat "you're being asked a question" as if that was any kind of argument. Thematic considerations are irrelevant if they come at the expense of story, world or character consistency. We aren't playing shell games here but called to act as if we were those characters and could act within the world presented. Stupidity doesn't suddenly become less stupid because it serves a purpose.

To go one step further, if the writers contrive circumstances that make a moderate choice unavailable once, that's fine, but if that becomes a pattern it adverse affects world consistency as well, because usually things don't work that way. And if every game ends the same way and you'll always end up supporting one extremist faction over the other, there will eventually come a point where you walk away from these stories in frustation. What's the point in having a choice in the first place if they all feel stupid or bad?

How do you migiate the effect of the genophage. Cure only some of them? Make them a little more fertile? Is that even viable? As far as I know medicine is hard to practise with such precision.
And the most important aspect do you think Wrex/The krogan or the Salarian delegate would have accepted any of this?

If X wants A to help you and Y wants C, you are not going to make either happy by suggestion B. Now if you had all the time in the world, perhaps you could sit down and talk to X and Y a long time make them see that perhaps B is a solution, but we don't have all the time in the world in Mass Effect or in any rpg, people are dying here and now and you have to make the best decision based on the circumstances.

[leaguer of one]

Klystron wrote...


edit:
Granted, that's just another extreme choice. 
For the record, I'd prefer some less-extreme choices too, like an opportunity to stop Orsino from doing something stupid. 

That still would have Meredith doing something stupid forcing the final fight anyway.

[Ieldra]

esper wrote...

Elfman wrote...
I think potentially extreme choices are good, so long as they are grey. By this point, most have their opinions on Templars and Mages down so it would be difficult to have a grey choice there. But to me, the DR was an extreme choice and brilliantly grey for most people.

Well the choice don't need to be grey to all players. In fact I would say that two choice which have the fanbase split between which is white and which is black is a a grey choice.

I think such choices don't exist. At least they're extremely rare. If a choice splits the fanbase that way, that usually means there is merit in both sides, and the moderates of each side will recognize that. Everyone will have a preference, but most will recognize the greyness.

Edit:
The general mage vs. templar problem - as opposed to its instance in Kirkwall - is of that kind. Order against freedom. Everyone has a preference but most people recognize the other side has a point as well. However, creating a choice which allows one principle to rule supreme while not giving the other any consideration at all, that's extreme.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 février 2014 - 02:29 .

[Klystron]

leaguer of one wrote...

Klystron wrote...


edit:
Granted, that's just another extreme choice. 
For the record, I'd prefer some less-extreme choices too, like an opportunity to stop Orsino from doing something stupid. 

That still would have Meredith doing something stupid forcing the final fight anyway.

Probably.
But I'd have really liked some way to have forced them to a stalemate, some precarious truce that would have still allowed for the later conflict in DA:I
Bonus points if it were really sly or devious.

[Iakus]

I support Ieldra's request. Being forced to choose the lesser evil has gotten way out of hand lately.

[Star fury]

a) Establishing a mage master race superiority is extremely attractive.

Subjugating mages in a templar crusade under the Chantry ideology is also fun.

Third option - making a totalitarian state with the Qunari where mages are slaves and the Chantry and templars are butchered is not bad either! So no, I can't quite agree with OP.

[esper]

Ninjaed

Modifié par esper, 24 février 2014 - 02:35 .

[Sanunes]

leaguer of one wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

I don't think the problem is the choice itself being extreme, but the outcome of that choice. I haven't had a problem with any of the choices in the games themselves, but leaving a choice that can be so divergent between each of the Mass Effect games it always left me with the feeling it wouldn't play a major role in the next game.

Using ME2 as an example, I don't mind the choice of keeping or destroying the Collector Base, but instead of having Cerberus flying to it if you pick destroy, the "releasing control" part will start an unstoppable self-destruct of the base itself so really at the end of the game the base will always be destroyed, but we did have the choice of picking what we wanted to see.

(Just to note, it took me several tries to read through the entire OP. People kept actually needed me to do my work the gall).

The thing is not everything is with in the players control. If you keep the base in ME2....How are you going to stop cerberus from using it, especially if Alliance or coucui is not allow to send ships in the terminus?

The way I see my example is that it would be an even playing field, for if Shepard choices destroy the Collector Base is destroyed by Shepard and the choice they made or if Shepard picks to keep the Collector Base its still destroyed by the Collector's.  For then it wouldn't seem (at least to me) to be such a large difference in choice to impact the following game for.

[jtav]

Actually, raising the genophage survival from one to five percent or whatever number should have been floated as a possibility, if only to get shot down by the krogan.

Some binaries do make sense. The Anvil is one of my favorite choices in a BW game and they hit you over the head with the sheer evil of the thing and Branka's insanity. But they also hit you over the head with how useful golems are and how dire the dwarven situation is. So the entire time I was going, "How can I? How can I not?" Much preferred to the easy compromise of the Dalish quest. But the middle road options do have to be anticipated, with good reasons for why they aren't viable.

[Ieldra]

leaguer of one wrote...
And the statement of "being asked a question " is avalid point. This is a case and concept of a hypathetic question. A question base in a what if situation where you limit actions to see what you'll do and how you react. Pretending that character with in these hypathetic situation added all the more to the debate on what to do with the question asked.

And to awnser you're final quastion, it's to see how you react and define yourself in that situation. This is no different from the Kobayashi Maru test from star trek which are unwinnable. It's  about testing and even developing the playerspersonal character.

As I said, we aren't playing shell games here. The situation is supposed to be a believable situation in the secondary world. It is not supposed to be a hypothetical one where you can add constraints like "the battle is unwinnable" just to make a point. Also, this is a roleplaying game. If anything, it tests the character of your player character, not yours. 

Also, my earlier point still stands. The Kobayashi Maru is designed to find out how people react in a no-win situation. If all main plot-related situations we find ourselves in in our games are no-win situations, they will eventually become frustrating. If I have the wish to walk away from the situation one time too many, I'll eventually walk away from the games instead.

[leaguer of one]

Sanunes wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

I don't think the problem is the choice itself being extreme, but the outcome of that choice. I haven't had a problem with any of the choices in the games themselves, but leaving a choice that can be so divergent between each of the Mass Effect games it always left me with the feeling it wouldn't play a major role in the next game.

Using ME2 as an example, I don't mind the choice of keeping or destroying the Collector Base, but instead of having Cerberus flying to it if you pick destroy, the "releasing control" part will start an unstoppable self-destruct of the base itself so really at the end of the game the base will always be destroyed, but we did have the choice of picking what we wanted to see.

(Just to note, it took me several tries to read through the entire OP. People kept actually needed me to do my work the gall).

The thing is not everything is with in the players control. If you keep the base in ME2....How are you going to stop cerberus from using it, especially if Alliance or coucui is not allow to send ships in the terminus?

The way I see my example is that it would be an even playing field, for if Shepard choices destroy the Collector Base is destroyed by Shepard and the choice they made or if Shepard picks to keep the Collector Base its still destroyed by the Collector's.  For then it wouldn't seem (at least to me) to be such a large difference in choice to impact the following game for.

The base is not destroyed byt he collectors if you controlit. The only ones that are destoryed are the collectors themselves. The base is still intact in control.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Actually, raising the genophage survival from one to five percent or whatever number should have been floated as a possibility, if only to get shot down by the krogan.

Some binaries do make sense. The Anvil is one of my favorite choices in a BW game and they hit you over the head with the sheer evil of the thing and Branka's insanity. But they also hit you over the head with how useful golems are and how dire the dwarven situation is. So the entire time I was going, "How can I? How can I not?" Much preferred to the easy compromise of the Dalish quest. But the middle road options do have to be anticipated, with good reasons for why they aren't viable.

Exactly. If the first thing that enters your mind is X, and you can't do X, the reasons need to be good. The mere assertion is not enough. Also, it shouldn't happen every single time you make a big decision.

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
And the statement of "being asked a question " is avalid point. This is a case and concept of a hypathetic question. A question base in a what if situation where you limit actions to see what you'll do and how you react. Pretending that character with in these hypathetic situation added all the more to the debate on what to do with the question asked.

And to awnser you're final quastion, it's to see how you react and define yourself in that situation. This is no different from the Kobayashi Maru test from star trek which are unwinnable. It's  about testing and even developing the playerspersonal character.

As I said, we aren't playing shell games here. The situation is supposed to be a believable situation in the secondary world. It is not supposed to be a hypothetical one where you can add constraints like "the battle is unwinnable" just to make a point. Also, this is a roleplaying game. If anything, it tests the character of your player character, not yours. 

Also, my earlier point still stands. The Kobayashi Maru is designed to find out how people react in a no-win situation. If all main plot-related situations we find ourselves in in our games are no-win situations, they will eventually become frustrating. If I have the wish to walk away from the situation one time too many, I'll eventually walk away from the games instead.

The fact we are facing an alien race form dark space invading us throws that arguement out the window. It 'snot super realistic. If it were we would not be facing   fleets of war ship ai's from dark space.
Sorry but that fact that it's not a narmal situation effect how we do chicein the game. This a question of Hypatheticals.

Also saying in a role playing game, the test to towards the character your playing as and not your is an false. This is a rolepalying game, you are the charater you're play as to anextent. You're still being tested, not the character you are playing as alone.

And for the Kobayashi Maru, it being unwinable is inconsiquencial. What it's about  is the point. They can make that there is a way to win but it changes from playthrough to play though. The point would still stand that it about seeing the players character. If your focus is on winning that you missed the point. It was never about winning.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 24 février 2014 - 02:53 .

[leaguer of one]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Actually, raising the genophage survival from one to five percent or whatever number should have been floated as a possibility, if only to get shot down by the krogan.

Some binaries do make sense. The Anvil is one of my favorite choices in a BW game and they hit you over the head with the sheer evil of the thing and Branka's insanity. But they also hit you over the head with how useful golems are and how dire the dwarven situation is. So the entire time I was going, "How can I? How can I not?" Much preferred to the easy compromise of the Dalish quest. But the middle road options do have to be anticipated, with good reasons for why they aren't viable.

Exactly. If the first thing that enters your mind is X, and you can't do X, the reasons need to be good. The mere assertion is not enough. Also, it shouldn't happen every single time you make a big decision.

Again, the entire issue is with what the Krogan want. You have to convine the Krogan that should be done, which is what they don't want to do. Your missing the fact here that the issue on hand is the ant of the 2 sides that have issue with it and your facing  a war you're quickly lossing. There is not time to truely debeat it.