129 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

durasteel 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.

Because choosing to have your turd sandwich with mustard or mayo is a crappy choice to have to make.

You want a better example? Virmire was well done. Kaiden and Ahsley were both in mortal peril, you couldn't save both, but the choice you made was to save one of them--you didn't choose to kill the other one. Plus, the event was early enough in the game that you were able to get some story benefit from your failure to save everyone.

There should be "an award" to each choice you can make in the game. Whenever a big choice comes up, you should get something out of it, whatever you choose. You should be choosing which thing you like best, because you want both; you should never choose which one sucks least, because you hate them all.

Another perfectly valid choice would be a polarising one, where the choice will be totally easy for you but that other people will disagree with you on. This helps set world states that are unique to your play-through. Chocolate vs. vanilla.

Wheather or not you're the cause of the death  of the  one of the people to save in the choice is no consiquience. It was like saying not curing the krogan makes no sense because you had to kill  mORDIN TO DO IT.(And yes, I know you can do with out killing him, but you still have to kill 2 other people to do it.)
And the choices in the end of ME3 did have award doing them. TYhey just had dire consiquences with them. Every choice but refuse ensure that the reapers cycle of distruction is stop and the remaining advance life is safe to rebuild the galexy how they choose, including  your remaining crew in most cases.
Some how that is not an award...was that not the goal?

And the ease of choice is based on perspective. Not a very solid arguement on that.

[durasteel]

Barquiel wrote...

iakus wrote...

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

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

Perfect solutions are the reward I look for in these games.

I get that not all issues can be resolved perfectly, and that the story should feature loss in order to sell the victories. When I play an ROG, though, I expect that all that stuff will be balanced with a perfect resolution to at least some of the issues I care about, and (looking at you, Mac) I do not want to be railroaded into a particular choice at the end as the only way to avoid having the perfect choice I achieved earlier completely blown to hell.

I think providing a side plot that can only be resolved perfectly if you have made certain choices in previous games is awesome. I'll never complain about too many of those.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

iakus wrote...

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

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

Perfect solutions are the reward I look for in these games.

I get that not all issues can be resolved perfectly, and that the story should feature loss in order to sell the victories. When I play an ROG, though, I expect that all that stuff will be balanced with a perfect resolution to at least some of the issues I care about, and (looking at you, Mac) I do not want to be railroaded into a particular choice at the end as the only way to avoid having the perfect choice I achieved earlier completely blown to hell.

I think providing a side plot that can only be resolved perfectly if you have made certain choices in previous games is awesome. I'll never complain about too many of those.

But it not about having the perfect solution. It's about seeing how the player reacts based on how they can solve the problem. About how they awnser the hypathetical question. How can it be a hypathetical question if a perfect awnser is there?

[durasteel]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

The difference being the Grey Wardens know that one of them has to die, and are prepared to accept that (well, Alistair and Loghain are prepared, they actually ask to be the one to make the sacrifice.  I find Loghain's quite touching)

Destroy in ME3 feels like a betrayal.  Full stop.

I actually think that a Logain Sacrifice ending is maybe the best ending to Origins. I usually go with the Dark Ritual because I will give Claudia Black anything she asks for, and because I'm curious to see what happens with the kid, but Logain is the villain of the Origins story, and that is the perfect end for him.

Destroy in ME3 is a perfect ending if you do not import a save, choose the Quarians over the Geth, and don't give a crap about EDI. Otherwise, it sucks as much as the other two. It is Shepard saving himself at the cost of other people, which is non-heroic. Considering how half-assed  the entire ending to ME3 was, though, I hesitate to hold it up as an example of anything except the way accelerating a release schedule can fornicate quality control.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...


It is Shepard saving himself at the cost of other people, which is non-heroic.

.....Wait, Shepard does not even know he/she can servive destroy. How do you figuare Shepard is trying to save himself?

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
So the fact that you were going to use a weapon that could anythingup to destroy most of the galexy does not regester with you that anything could mean anything as long as it stops the reapers, right? And that anything can mean DEATH FOR ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE!!!!!

Setting aside for a moment how silly the phrase "death for all synthetic life" sounds, I just want to point out that you're trying to apply the idea of reasonable expectation to an ending that redefines the conflic and then throws three stupid handwave-space-magic solutions at you.

Until you recieve the Catalist's moronic exposition on the effects of space magic by color, you cannot possibly know that it is even remotely possible to shoot a bit of machinery and bring about "death for all synthetic life." The end choices are so nonsensical that it might as well have been "death to anything with hooves" or "everyone above 1.6 meters tall will be blind."

If your going to have a nasty outcome--or even the possibility of a nasty outcome--you need to avoid having that as a suprise, otheriwse you are just serving up a turd sandwich. If people knew that the end of that game would basically be some random BS effected by nonsensical space magic and that Shepard would dies in most endings, but could save himself by sacrificing some of his allies, a lot of them wouldn't bother to finish the damn game... because that ending sucks. It was a suprise ending like a pie in the face, if that pie were made of crap.

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...

durasteel wrote...


It is Shepard saving himself at the cost of other people, which is non-heroic.

.....Wait, Shepard does not even know he/she can servive destroy. How do you figuare Shepard is trying to save himself?

Everyone metagames the ending. By the middle of the starbrat conversation, no one is still looking at that garbage through Shepard's eyes.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

durasteel wrote...


It is Shepard saving himself at the cost of other people, which is non-heroic.

.....Wait, Shepard does not even know he/she can servive destroy. How do you figuare Shepard is trying to save himself?

Everyone metagames the ending. By the middle of the starbrat conversation, no one is still looking at that garbage through Shepard's eyes.

Nope. Not everyone metagames the ending. You clearly do. I guess thats the problem. If your issue that Shepard is just saving himself  with info he/she magicly knows, just make sure the ems point arn't high enough to ensue he she lives....Problem solved
I think you need to understand not it not a s big as a mountain of people hate the ending as much as you think they are...But this is not the forum to arge that on.

The point stands Shepard does not know he/she can live in destroy.

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
Wheather or not you're the cause of the death  of the  one of the people to save in the choice is no consiquience. It was like saying not curing the krogan makes no sense because you had to kill  mORDIN TO DO IT.(And yes, I know you can do with out killing him, but you still have to kill 2 other people to do it.)
And the choices in the end of ME3 did have award doing them. TYhey just had dire consiquences with them. Every choice but refuse ensure that the reapers cycle of distruction is stop and the remaining advance life is safe to rebuild the galexy how they choose, including  your remaining crew in most cases.
Some how that is not an award...was that not the goal?

And the ease of choice is based on perspective. Not a very solid arguement on that.

Whether you're the cause of death for Caidan or Ashley makes a huge difference. They're both facing death, you can save one... that's complely different from both being alive and secure, and you having to chose which one to kill. 

There was zero reward from the choices at the end of ME3. None. You began the game knowing that Shepard would stop the reapers, so stopping the reapers was a given. Your choices are: kill a few of your allies; die and let the reapers live with your ghost as their new god; or die and transform everything in the galaxy into magic cybernetic unicorns that poop rainbows where every color is green. If you choose "none of the above," your ending is "lol ever1 iz ded."

That sucks.

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
Nope. Not everyone metagames the ending. You clearly do. I guess thats the problem. If your issue that Shepard is just saving himself  with info he/she magicly knows, just make sure the ems point arn't high enough to ensue he she lives....Problem solved
I think you need to understand not it not a s big as a mountain of people hate the ending as much as you think they are...But this is not the forum to arge that on.

The point stands Shepard does not know he/she can live in destroy.

Not everyone hates the ending, only about 60% do. Most of the rest don't care, and about 10% say they like it.

If you say you're still in-character when you pick a color of space magic at the end, I can't effectively challenge that claim. I don't believe you, but I can't prove it.

Starbrat doesn't tell Shepard that (s)he will die in destroy. The other two clearly spell it out. 

You're right about one thing, though, this isn't the right forum to discuss that ending. If you're still defending it after all this time, I doubt serious anything I could possibly say would change your mind anyway.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Wheather or not you're the cause of the death  of the  one of the people to save in the choice is no consiquience. It was like saying not curing the krogan makes no sense because you had to kill  mORDIN TO DO IT.(And yes, I know you can do with out killing him, but you still have to kill 2 other people to do it.)
And the choices in the end of ME3 did have award doing them. TYhey just had dire consiquences with them. Every choice but refuse ensure that the reapers cycle of distruction is stop and the remaining advance life is safe to rebuild the galexy how they choose, including  your remaining crew in most cases.
Some how that is not an award...was that not the goal?

And the ease of choice is based on perspective. Not a very solid arguement on that.

Whether you're the cause of death for Caidan or Ashley makes a huge difference. They're both facing death, you can save one... that's complely different from both being alive and secure, and you having to chose which one to kill. 

There was zero reward from the choices at the end of ME3. None. You began the game knowing that Shepard would stop the reapers, so stopping the reapers was a given. Your choices are: kill a few of your allies; die and let the reapers live with your ghost as their new god; or die and transform everything in the galaxy into magic cybernetic unicorns that poop rainbows where every color is green. If you choose "none of the above," your ending is "lol ever1 iz ded."

That sucks.

Not it does not matter. It's been an arguement made though out ME3, you save who you can and you what you can based on the circumstances on hand. Garrus, Anderson,Kaiden, even Shepard him/her self point this out. It matter not if your the direct cause or not being that what ever happen their deaths are cause by your actions.
And yes their was reward for the ending of ME3.  Making sure adavance life continues, the cycle of destruction of the reapers ending and most of your crew and l love one being saved is not an award? Was that not the point?
You're just too focused on the cons.

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
But it not about having the perfect solution. It's about seeing how the player reacts based on how they can solve the problem. About how they awnser the hypathetical question. How can it be a hypathetical question if a perfect awnser is there?

What I am telling you is that for me, it is about having the perfect solution. Maybe not the first time I play, but afterward I want the perfect solution to be available, and I'll work my ass off to get it.

Your "hypothetical questions" are often not questions that I want to answer. Life is about difficult choices, I look for flawless victory in my RPGs.

[Wulfram]

Arbitrarily excluded middles are bad, but too often having a golden mean can feel like cop-outs. The choices available should be the ones that make sense, I don't think you prescribe anything more than that without risking artificiality.

Though I do think there should be some occasions where the middle option is available, but is the worst one.

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why have that mechanic at all? Why immortalize the main enemy until you give it a 'Warden as sacrifice?

Oh yeah, Dark Ritual...

I don't know why they chose to have that mechanic rather than another.

But this particular mechanic was handled well.  The chocies, the sacrifices, and the benefits all feel valid and reasonably balanced. The options don't leave me feeling cheated.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
But it not about having the perfect solution. It's about seeing how the player reacts based on how they can solve the problem. About how they awnser the hypathetical question. How can it be a hypathetical question if a perfect awnser is there?

What I am telling you is that for me, it is about having the perfect solution. Maybe not the first time I play, but afterward I want the perfect solution to be available, and I'll work my ass off to get it.

Your "hypothetical questions" are often not questions that I want to answer. Life is about difficult choices, I look for flawless victory in my RPGs.

And that's way there so many camps on this. One side want pure escapisum, and another  wants the choices to think about.
It just comes down to the want of self satisfaction. No one is ever going change you;re mind about it....But you should understand bw does not guarrantee they will give you exactly what you want or have to. They clearly want to be as far away as possible from the black and white ending of kotor.

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
Not it does not matter. It's been an arguement made though out ME3, you save who you can and you what you can based on the circumstances on hand. Garrus, Anderson,Kaiden, even Shepard him/her self point this out. It matter not if your the direct cause or not being that what ever happen their deaths are cause by your actions.
And yes their was reward for the ending of ME3.  Making sure adavance life continues, the cycle of destruction of the reapers ending and most of your crew and l love one being saved is not an award? Was that not the point?
You're just too focused on the cons.

Again, I'm telling you that it matters to me. You might not believe me, that's your perogative, but I assure you that it does actually matter to me, and effects my enjoyment of the game. Saving either Kaidan or Ashley is heroic. Actually killing one to save the other would make me dislike playing Shepard. You can reiterate that is doesn't matter as much as you like, but it will always be false from my perspective.

"Making sure adavance life continues, the cycle of destruction of the reapers ending and most of your crew and l love one being saved" are common elements of each color of space magic. As such, they cannot be considered a reward for the choice. If you always wanted to be a robot god, I suppose blue gives you a reward, but other than that you get nothing as a reward for the choice you make.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why have that mechanic at all? Why immortalize the main enemy until you give it a 'Warden as sacrifice?

Oh yeah, Dark Ritual...

I don't know why they chose to have that mechanic rather than another.

But this particular mechanic was handled well.  The chocies, the sacrifices, and the benefits all feel valid and reasonably balanced. The options don't leave me feeling cheated.

More of a case i just gave you the chance to have the happy ending you want so badly.

[Iakus]

leaguer of one wrote...

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why have that mechanic at all? Why immortalize the main enemy until you give it a 'Warden as sacrifice?

Oh yeah, Dark Ritual...

I don't know why they chose to have that mechanic rather than another.

But this particular mechanic was handled well.  The chocies, the sacrifices, and the benefits all feel valid and reasonably balanced. The options don't leave me feeling cheated.

More of a case i just gave you the chance to have the happy ending you want so badly.

If by that you mean I finished the game in a good mood, then yes.

But none of the endings were perfect in my mind.  And the Dark Ritual is not my favorite ending.

And really, what's wrong with having a chance at a happy ending, in a chocie-based narrative?

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...
And that's way there so many camps on this. One side want pure escapisum, and another  wants the choices to think about.
It just comes down to the want of self satisfaction. No one is ever going change you;re mind about it....But you should understand bw does not guarrantee they will give you exactly what you want or have to. They clearly want to be as far away as possible from the black and white ending of kotor.

Make the perfect solution difficult (or at least time consuming) to achieve, and the less-than-perfect options interesting enough to invite thought and discussion. DA:O is a good example, because there are many possible outcomes and each has its advocates as a "perfect" solution.

For the record, I totally liked the end of KotOR. For me, the redemption of Bastila was the dramatic climax, kicking Malak's ass was dénouement, although I certainly enjoyed doing it a great deal.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Not it does not matter. It's been an arguement made though out ME3, you save who you can and you what you can based on the circumstances on hand. Garrus, Anderson,Kaiden, even Shepard him/her self point this out. It matter not if your the direct cause or not being that what ever happen their deaths are cause by your actions.
And yes their was reward for the ending of ME3.  Making sure adavance life continues, the cycle of destruction of the reapers ending and most of your crew and l love one being saved is not an award? Was that not the point?
You're just too focused on the cons.

Again, I'm telling you that it matters to me. You might not believe me, that's your perogative, but I assure you that it does actually matter to me, and effects my enjoyment of the game. Saving either Kaidan or Ashley is heroic. Actually killing one to save the other would make me dislike playing Shepard. You can reiterate that is doesn't matter as much as you like, but it will always be false from my perspective.

"Making sure adavance life continues, the cycle of destruction of the reapers ending and most of your crew and l love one being saved" are common elements of each color of space magic. As such, they cannot be considered a reward for the choice. If you always wanted to be a robot god, I suppose blue gives you a reward, but other than that you get nothing as a reward for the choice you make.

I mean to the plot. If it does matter to you don't pick the choice you don't like. Just understand their is no guarrantee you going to get a choice you like. There is a pretty big hint that it was not going to be the super happy end by the way the characters were going on about hard choices and how they may sacrifce of themselves and other willing and unwilling to stop the reapers.
And sorry but what I said are rewards. It matters not  it's close to equal rewards.(Remeber, their ending where everyone dies, most people die, only some in this game, plus so it's alot more then 3 results based on the last choices.)
Sorry, but they are rewards, you just not satisfied with them.

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
And that's way there so many camps on this. One side want pure escapisum, and another  wants the choices to think about.
It just comes down to the want of self satisfaction. No one is ever going change you;re mind about it....But you should understand bw does not guarrantee they will give you exactly what you want or have to. They clearly want to be as far away as possible from the black and white ending of kotor.

Make the perfect solution difficult (or at least time consuming) to achieve, and the less-than-perfect options interesting enough to invite thought and discussion. DA:O is a good example, because there are many possible outcomes and each has its advocates as a "perfect" solution.

For the record, I totally liked the end of KotOR. For me, the redemption of Bastila was the dramatic climax, kicking Malak's ass was dénouement, although I certainly enjoyed doing it a great deal.

It's clear they don't want to just make it with a perfect solution and the point was never about the perfect solution. Heck, even the bast choices in ME3 were far from perfect.
Which was my point in the argue ment. Your issue is about self satisfaction, bw has no guarantees for that.

[durasteel]

iakus wrote...

But none of the endings were perfect in my mind.  And the Dark Ritual is not my favorite ending.

I have to ask, if you're not gonna do the DR, then how is Logain's sacrifice not perfect? I also really like the Alistair romance ending for an elf, where you leave his ass at the gate and die for lost love. That's pretty damn epic.

It would have great to have the possibility for Shepard to clock out at the end of ME3, but writing it in as an unavoidable (rubble breath excepted) heavy handed device for no apparent reason was just dumb. The possibility of death makes survival more appreciated.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why have that mechanic at all? Why immortalize the main enemy until you give it a 'Warden as sacrifice?

Oh yeah, Dark Ritual...

I don't know why they chose to have that mechanic rather than another.

But this particular mechanic was handled well.  The chocies, the sacrifices, and the benefits all feel valid and reasonably balanced. The options don't leave me feeling cheated.

More of a case i just gave you the chance to have the happy ending you want so badly.

If by that you mean I finished the game in a good mood, then yes.

But none of the endings were perfect in my mind.  And the Dark Ritual is not my favorite ending.

And really, what's wrong with having a chance at a happy ending, in a chocie-based narrative?

Outside that the point is to ask a hypathetiacal question to see what the players character is and perfect awnser avalible ruins the point of the question?

[leaguer of one]

durasteel wrote...

iakus wrote...

But none of the endings were perfect in my mind.  And the Dark Ritual is not my favorite ending.

I have to ask, if you're not gonna do the DR, then how is Logain's sacrifice not perfect? I also really like the Alistair romance ending for an elf, where you leave his ass at the gate and die for lost love. That's pretty damn epic.

It would have great to have the possibility for Shepard to clock out at the end of ME3, but writing it in as an unavoidable (rubble breath excepted) heavy handed device for no apparent reason was just dumb. The possibility of death makes survival more appreciated.

Dude... You can die in destroy.  It's just clear you don't like open ended endings for the hero.

[durasteel]

Dude... You can die in destroy.  It's just clear you don't like open ended endings for the hero.

You completely missed my point, and as soon as I finish checking out the new forum stuff I'll be back to tell you why.