42 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

The choices, because there are no consequences - at least you get to imagine what impact your Shepard's decisions might make. 

[geth47]

The consequences. What´s the point of having choices if they won´t impact anything at all?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Ya, choices, for the same reasons as Alex.

 

Take something like the Rachni queen decision back in ME1. Shepard has a tough choice in front of him, does he extinguish an entire race of life preventing forever the return of a galactic threat or does he take a chance to let them live. Unfortunately, the consequence is that the choice didn't matter, as the Reapers are able to sow together a new queen which has the same Rachni producing capacities as the old one and Shepard again gets to make the same decision.

 

In general though consequences. DA:O made me regret a few times my decisions once I found out where they led.

[Rusty Sandusky]

[Nightwriter]

I have a hard time divorcing one from the other.

[Iakus]

In the end, neither mattered

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Consequences. Choices don't matter when there is nothing to show for it. That said, I like to have a greater number of consequences stemming from a greater number of choices. They both work best when you have the other.

[geth47]

You can have choices, but with no consequences. 

 

But you can´t have diverse consequences without having choice.

 

So, obviously I go with consequences, for if I have consequence, I needed to have choice in the first place. 

[Rusty Sandusky]

In the end, neither mattered

One thing,
I don't know why,
It doesn't even matter how hard you try

[Excella Gionne]

Both, what's the point of a choice if there came no consequences?

[SwobyJ]

Both, what's the point of a choice if there came no consequences?

 

Choice defines you.

Consequences defines the world.

 

You make your choices.

Consequences are felt by those impacted by the choices.

 

Without choice, there is only one outcome.

Without consequences, you never get to change.

 

~~~

 

Personally, I prefer dealing with and seeing consequences. While the whole 'only you can choose how to react to things' theme is nice and even interesting to me, I'm far more into watching the cascading effects of choices.

 

If the next game somehow delivers on this, it'd be a big step forward out of the shadow of ME3.

 

I'm done with being the unmovable Commander Shepard who barely budges from what he is, until the very end. I want more range, even if it sacrifices the focus on a singular powerful will in a protagonist. I want change.

[dgcatanisiri]

They're pretty well woven together for me. Even if it just comes down to me interpreting or reinterpreting things in a different fashion over actually seeing direct results in game, the choices and the consequences of those choices are intrinsically interconnected. The choices have a direct result in the consequences, and those consequences affect future choices.

 

I do think the game gives more emphasis on 'choice' over 'consequences,' but that's pretty nature-of-the-beast-y. It's really difficult to produce a single game to account for the wildly divergent possibilities that ensue from each decision.

[JamesFaith]

Choices but not always with (visible) consequences.

 

I want to be part of the world not his ultimate ruler deciding about every its aspect.

[Astrogenesis]

I'd have both.

What's the point in the choice if you don't get to see the outcome.

Ashley and Kaiden for instance, the consequences of that choice stick with you for the next 2.5 games. 

 

However, Shepard is not the centre of the universe. Sometimes some of the choices you make won't directly affect your future. Such as choosing to kill or turn in Jacob's father. You never see him again, so the consequences aren't so significant. 

 

But it also depends on the type of choice. The Virmire Sacrifice was a case where you couldn't continue with both, similar to the Rannoch choice (without the option of peace). On the other hand, you have choices like shooting Wrex, where you can act or choose to continue without acting. Its more of a preference choice, rather than a hard line 'you can't have both, pick one' choice. 

[SwobyJ]

They're pretty well woven together for me. Even if it just comes down to me interpreting or reinterpreting things in a different fashion over actually seeing direct results in game, the choices and the consequences of those choices are intrinsically interconnected. The choices have a direct result in the consequences, and those consequences affect future choices.

 

I do think the game gives more emphasis on 'choice' over 'consequences,' but that's pretty nature-of-the-beast-y. It's really difficult to produce a single game to account for the wildly divergent possibilities that ensue from each decision.

 

I like to think that Citadel DLC is practice of a lower-scale choice-consequence model.

 

In itself, it has more consequences than most installments of the trilogy. Even if those consequences are just silly fun (and therefore the player doesn't worry about them), they're still consequences and noticeable ones, based on actions done from all they way back in ME1.

[wright1978]

Choices, those are what create the sense of player agency.

[Abelas Forever!]

Consequences because choices without consequences would be boring. The consequences don't have to be major descisions. Just something that makes the story a little bit different.

[SwobyJ]

I'll put it another way.

 

If you had all choice but little-to-no consequence, then the story is more about what defines you and/or the protagonist. The Mass Effect trilogy is really about this, when taken from the larger industry scale. Its consequences are largely of a more cosmetic nature, never changing Shepard's destiny, but letting him define his world experience with his actions. Wrex or Wreav? Synthetics or Organics? Paragon or Renegade?

He'll always stop the Reapers, but to what extent? And what will he sacrifice in order to do so? And was he, in the end, right to do so in the way he chose to (Destruction, Control, Synthesis)?

(Elcor Hamlet)

 

If you had little-to-no choice (at least compared to...) but much more (emphasis on) consequence, then the story is more about what is done with your great power over what will happen, and less about what kind of person you/the protagonist is through their decisions. It's about a larger view, one of factions, societies, cultures, and exploration of the world beyond the self, and how the protagonist interacts with that, through his greater power to influence it on a regular basis. He is the bigger authority, not only the paragon or renegade for his squad/henchmen/cult to follow.

(Pyjak Macbeth, upcoming?)

 

I don't think Bioware will be stripping us of all choice in the next game - that's not what I'm saying. But I do think that they may shift the story emphasis away from 'what defines your Commander Shepard', and instead give us a more predefined role (even if its origins vary), with much greater power than before, and have us not necessarily more defined by the choices we make as a person, but by the consequences that it subjects others and the greater worlds/universes to. What is your Milky Way galaxy?

 

When you consider the Mass Effect games, we have some decisions that are highly implied to have huge consequences to the galaxy, but with the Reaper threat and other plot elements, these consequences aren't allowed to come into as much fruition as we would have wanted. Instead, the story is more about how Shepard approaches dilemmas, and what it makes him as a person (soldier, leader, legend; normal, hero, antihero).

 

They're doing some of this with Dragon Age: Inqusition, from what I've seen. I think the Inquisitor will be significantly different compared to our experience with the Grey Warden and Hawke.

 

~~~

 

I'm all for consequence over choice in the themes, so I'm personally optimistic about the future of Bioware's stories.

[Orikon]

Consequences. I'd rather have a few choices that heavily impacted the game than a lot of choices that in the end mean nothing.

[Reorte]

Not all choices have to have significant consequences. Some should just shape things a bit for the player but have no impact on the overall story. Others obviously have to be more important. I'd say the majority of choices shouldn't result in big consequences but ideally every choice should have some, even if it's minor and subtle. Have only the big choices and the game becomes too impersonal.

[Jorji Costava]

I'll go with the middle ground; the more important thing to me is that the choice-and-consequence system should make logical sense. ME2's suicide mission was a big violator in this regard; how does not earning someone's loyalty increase the probability that he or she will be hit by a stray rocket? There seems no logical connection here, and that was a bit of a pet peeve in my mind.

[Abelas Forever!]

I'll put it another way.

 

If you had all choice but little-to-no consequence, then the story is more about what defines you and/or the protagonist. The Mass Effect trilogy is really about this, when taken from the larger industry scale. Its consequences are largely of a more cosmetic nature, never changing Shepard's destiny, but letting him define his world experience with his actions. Wrex or Wreav? Synthetics or Organics? Paragon or Renegade?

He'll always stop the Reapers, but to what extent? And what will he sacrifice in order to do so? And was he, in the end, right to do so in the way he chose to (Destruction, Control, Synthesis)?

(Elcor Hamlet)

 

If you had little-to-no choice (at least compared to...) but much more (emphasis on) consequence, then the story is more about what is done with your great power over what will happen, and less about what kind of person you/the protagonist is through their decisions. It's about a larger view, one of factions, societies, cultures, and exploration of the world beyond the self, and how the protagonist interacts with that, through his greater power to influence it on a regular basis. He is the bigger authority, not only the paragon or renegade for his squad/henchmen/cult to follow.

(Pyjak Macbeth, upcoming?)

 

I don't think Bioware will be stripping us of all choice in the next game - that's not what I'm saying. But I do think that they may shift the story emphasis away from 'what defines your Commander Shepard', and instead give us a more predefined role (even if its origins vary), with much greater power than before, and have us not necessarily more defined by the choices we make as a person, but by the consequences that it subjects others and the greater worlds/universes to. What is your Milky Way galaxy?

 

When you consider the Mass Effect games, we have some decisions that are highly implied to have huge consequences to the galaxy, but with the Reaper threat and other plot elements, these consequences aren't allowed to come into as much fruition as we would have wanted. Instead, the story is more about how Shepard approaches dilemmas, and what it makes him as a person (soldier, leader, legend; normal, hero, antihero).

 

They're doing some of this with Dragon Age: Inqusition, from what I've seen. I think the Inquisitor will be significantly different compared to our experience with the Grey Warden and Hawke.

 

~~~

 

I'm all for consequence over choice in the themes, so I'm personally optimistic about the future of Bioware's stories.

So you would like to be some kind of god like figure in a game who has power to decide the fate of the people or the universe? So that what ever you decide that matters and not what others do?

 

I think there were very big decisions in ME series. You could decide the faith of the rachni species. What comes to the game it didn't have much impact on it but the consequences to the rachi species were huge. You just did't see it in a game. Curing the genophage is also a big decision. Of couse you can't see the consequences of that because the reaper war is still going on. So I think there were big decisions which had big consequences in ME but the story didn't concentrate on them because it was Shepard's story.

 

Others will always define you by your actions. But I think what really defines you to yourself is the situation where you'll have to choose. You make the decision and you do it because of what you are and what you want to accomplish. You might want to save as many people as possible or if you are a renegade then you might see it that killing one person is better than letting him live because you don't believe that he can change and in the future he might kill again or do some other bad things. So the consequences come later and you might not be there to see them.

[SwobyJ]

So you would like to be some kind of god like figure in a game who has power to decide the fate of the people or the universe? So that what ever you decide that matters and not what others do?

 
No. There will always be other authorities. In Thedas there is the Qunari and Tevinter, regardless of what we end up doing with Mages, Templar, the Chantry.

Same for Mass Effect. There may end up to be several major factions. I'd love to be in charge with a gradually growing one though. Of course. I like sim games, so a sim+RPG as a story would be awesome.
 

I think there were very big decisions in ME series. You could decide the faith of the rachni species. What comes to the game it didn't have much impact on it but the consequences to the rachi species were huge. You just did't see it in a game.

That's my point...
That the consequences aren't as important to the story being told and the game design in showcasing them. Not that there isn't consequences, period. Duh, of course choices have consequences.
 

Curing the genophage is also a big decision. Of couse you can't see the consequences of that because the reaper war is still going on. So I think there were big decisions which had big consequences in ME but the story didn't concentrate on them because it was Shepard's story.

Again, that's my point. It's not Shepard's Story, as defined by the writers, to care as much about the consequences as opposed to the choices you make and the motivations behind them. In a way, Hamlet.
 

Others will always define you by your actions. But I think what really defines you to yourself is the situation where you'll have to choose. You make the decision and you do it because of what you are and what you want to accomplish. You might want to save as many people as possible or if you are a renegade then you might see it that killing one person is better than letting him live because you don't believe that he can change and in the future he might kill again or do some other bad things. So the consequences come later and you might not be there to see them.

Just as Commander Shepard may not be there to see the greater consequences of his own choices, and Warden+Hawke may not be there to see the greater consequences of their own choices (even if they're in Inquisition, we don't yet know in what form, where, and for how long).

[Farangbaa]

 Of course. I like sim games, so a sim+RPG as a story would be awesome.

 

My dream game is when you play an RPG unil you're king/emperor/warlord/whatever, and then the game turns into some Civilization-like game in which you can still zoom down to a Mass Effect like 3rd person view.

 

With battles like the Total War series...

 

I might never leave the house again.