42 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

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.

 

Won't happen yet.

 

I want it for the 2020s though.

 

(See: My Red-Blue-Green Bioware Theory, haha)

[Farangbaa]

Won't happen yet.

 

I want it for the 2020s though.

 

(See: My Red-Blue-Green Bioware Theory, haha)

 

I just hope my girlfriend... then probably my wife, will still allow me to play games in the 2020's

[SwobyJ]

I just hope my girlfriend... then probably my wife, will still allow me to play games in the 2020's

 

My boyfriend/husband not letting me play video games my whole life will not be my boyfriend/husband.

[Farangbaa]

My boyfriend/husband not letting me play video games my whole life will not be my boyfriend/husband.

 

I'm pretty sure getting kids is going to change a whole lot

 

But I get what you mean, I should've worded it differently. I don't think my gf will allow me to play games this intensively in the 2020s

[SwobyJ]

I'm pretty sure getting kids is going to change a whole lot

 

But I get what you mean, I should've worded it differently. I don't think my gf will allow me to play games this intensively in the 2020s

 

<--- gay. Any child obtained will be optional; surrogate or adoption. It can happen in our 20s, but more likely 30s or 40s. Until then, 'DINK' (double income no kids).

 

And yeah... as time goes on, I'm expecting less pure gaming leisure time for any adult, but also more 'gameification' (I hate that word) in the workplace. Eventually merging into some work/play Brave New World singularity 0_0.

[Farangbaa]

<--- gay. Any child obtained will be optional; surrogate or adoption. It can happen in our 20s, but more likely 30s or 40s. Until then, 'DINK' (double income no kids).

 

And yeah... as time goes on, I'm expecting less pure gaming leisure time for any adult, but also more 'gameification' (I hate that word) in the workplace. Eventually merging into some work/play Brave New World singularity 0_0.

 

Do you dread female LIs as much as I dread male LIs?

 

Even when I play a Femshep, I just can't bring myself to romance Kaidan or Garrus or one of the other males. In fact I made a Femshep just to romance Samantha

[SwobyJ]

Do you dread female LIs as much as I dread male LIs?
 
Even when I play a Femshep, I just can't bring myself to romance Kaidan or Garrus or one of the other males. In fact I made a Femshep just to romance Samantha

 
I'm totally fine with female LIs!
 
Good with:
-Kaidan
-Ashley
-Liara
-Miranda (only with Citadel DLC as part of it)
-Garrus (sorta)
-Thane
-Tali (sorta)
-Jack
-Samara (her ME2-ME3Citadel path https://www.youtube....h?v=QNcwM-VpCek)
 
Not good with:
-Jacob (wtf?)
-James/Javik as it exists ( ((( drunk???)
-Samantha (kinda, I think it can be better)
-Steve (kinda, I think it can be better)
-Kelly/Allers/Whatever (lol)
 
My plan is for several Shepards that cover most of the romances (at least 6-7 of them). I have no problem with the gender of a LI, as long as they have a story I can enjoy and don't look laughable (Jacob, Miranda's Ass, Samantha's Shower - I'm good with Thane's Ghost for my own reasons).
 
I just want a m/m for my MainShep, because I want that one to be the most like me as possible in the story.

[Dabrikishaw]

The consequences. I like playing with certain goals in mind. For example I kill Mordin in the Suicde Mission if I want Padok Wiks to cure the Genophage.

[SwobyJ]

The consequences. I like playing with certain goals in mind. For example I kill Mordin in the Suicde Mission if I want Padok Wiks to cure the Genophage.

 

Yeah any metagamer will be more into consequences imo.

 

Those more into the immersion rather than the meta, seem to be more about the choice aspect. What defines their specific character - not what they do to others way down the line.

 

But there's a lot of metagamers in the roleplaying game fan population.. the result being the outrage at the ending of ME3 not having nearly as many results for trilogy-wide actions as was expected.

[Athro]

Consequences -  because you can't have them without choices.

 

The reason I don't pick choices without consequences is because while a story can have choices without any changes to the consequences that makes for an unrealistic and boring story. In life choices always have consequences, so any game that involves choices *should* have consequences that are linked to those choices.

 

Yes, choices define you but only in so far as to the consequences that they lead to. The whole point of a choice and how it defines you is that you weigh up what you believe the consequences will be and make a choice. If there are no differences in the following consequences it diminishes the weight of that choice.

 

Consider this - you have the choice to save or kill a person. Now let's say that killing the character doesn't change the major plot. The hero still goes to the same locations, faces the same enemy... if the same people attend and it all still leads to the same ending - then why have the death at all?

 

But if the killing means that when the hero faces the enemy s/he faces the enemy alone and rather than a scene where the hero is surrounded by allies all confidently delivering smack talk to an enemy who is nervous and threatened we get a sequence where the hero stands alone while the overconfident enemy mocks them and says "are we so different" that's an excellent example of consequence to choices without needing to go too far off the original story.

 

And it not only tells us a lot about the hero for making the choice, we learn something about the antagonist as well.

 

I definitely pick consequence. Every time.

[ShadowLordXII]

Consequence without choice is essentially a railroad while choice without consequence never challenges anyone. While both are good and I actually prefer to take both, I lean more to the choice aspect of gameplay rather than "consequence".

 

This always seems somewhat iffy for me, and I'm not just talking about DA or ME. Choices made by characters are typically actions that they take agency in committing due to a situation that they're in and they'll react in a manner that fits the character.

 

A good hero will typically try to save people, protect their friends, uphold the law(if it's a just law) and battle evil. But the consequences of said actions can't be truly predicted. And that's where I get worried. For DA:Inquisition, the consequences of our choices will ultimately be up to the judgement of the writers and I'm not certain that said consequences will be balanced or fair.

 

Take Origins for example. You can choose between Bhelen or Harrowmont, but the epilogue tells you that Bhelen is the best choice. But the game didn't give any indication or trait that would make Bhelen a decent ruler, especially for a more morally-based character. Choosing Harrowmont turns out to be a bad choice though nothing about his honor or traditionalism suggested that he would be a terrible king. This is a case where the consequences are thrown in just for the sake of screwing with the player rather than actually adding depth to the story. If you can do both fine, but the latter is preferable and adds more gameplay/narrative merit.

 

Here's another example. Nothing suggests that recruiting Loghain is a good idea and even Riorden's "we need more wardens" logic just doesn't fly when there are dozens of other potential recruits in that very hall. Most of whom are unlikely to do anything stupid like Loghain had done for the past year. The cons clearly outweigh the pros in a non-meta rationale and that's why he typically dies in my playthroughs. Granted, the consequences of actually recruiting Loghain aren't really bad apart from the potential exile/death/break-up concerning Alistair, but before I make that decision, I don't know that.

 

Even putting Anora on the throne by herself is suspect and the game relies on "Tell rather than Show" to try and convince me that she'll be a good queen. Even though she's the one who made her father regent, and stood by and did nothing to oppose Howe or her father, and she'll potentially backstab you to protect her father even knowing everything that he's done and that siding with him is essentially turning her back on Ferelden.

 

A little long-winded, but my point is that consequence is not something that can be measured by the player. Ultimately, the best way to do things for a character is for them to commit to a choice and be ready for any consequence that comes their way. Trying to second-guess the intentions of the writers will just make the game less fun and more akin to a meta-game puzzle. Punishing players for a choice is fine, but punishing them for every little choice even though nothing in the situation suggested that it was a bad choice...that's the writer being mean.

 

I'd rather just stay in character and make informed choices rather than worrying and getting weighed down by hypothetical consequences. The consequences that come will come and the player will just have to manage.

[Abelas Forever!]

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.

Well I guess my rachni example wasn't very good because the consequences weren't big in that case and the consequences of it might take much more time to show. Maybe I should try with Wrex/Wreav instead. If you don't kill Wrex then he will be a leader in Tuchanka. I liked that because when you go to Tuchanka then Wrex will be very happy to see you but Wreav is quite hostile towards you. So what you did had meaning. Because  Wrex and Wreav are different leaders then you might expect that there should be more changes in Krogans. But I think those things take time to develop. Of course the consequences could have been much smaller what comes to Wrex and Wreav. You might have a choice to kill Wrex or not but nonetheless Wreav would be in Tuchanka and Wrex would be somewhere and you just don't see him anymore. So the consequences of the choices are quite minimal in that case.

 

So I guess you would like to have more power to change things in the universe? Like choosing a king or queen and you could see the consequences of the person you have chosen sooner? What kind of consequencess would you have liked to be in ME? Like I have said before I don't need big consequences of the choices I have made. Like saving the council in ME1 didn't have much consequences if you think about the story. The whole council was just flying around with their ship in ME2 and nothing what I had done to them had any meaning. But I liked it. I like the way they just didn't care about Shepard's warnings about Reapers. I just couldn't change them. If I'm not awfully wrong there is one Turian guy in Citadel who is very happy to see you if you saved the council but if you kill the council he will be quite hostile.

[SwobyJ]

Well I guess my rachni example wasn't very good because the consequences weren't big in that case and the consequences of it might take much more time to show. Maybe I should try with Wrex/Wreav instead. If you don't kill Wrex then he will be a leader in Tuchanka. I liked that because when you go to Tuchanka then Wrex will be very happy to see you but Wreav is quite hostile towards you. So what you did had meaning. Because  Wrex and Wreav are different leaders then you might expect that there should be more changes in Krogans. But I think those things take time to develop. Of course the consequences could have been much smaller what comes to Wrex and Wreav. You might have a choice to kill Wrex or not but nonetheless Wreav would be in Tuchanka and Wrex would be somewhere and you just don't see him anymore. So the consequences of the choices are quite minimal in that case.

Of course there's consequences. But they don't matter. None of them are required to get to your end, which is using the Crucible. No Bioware game in recent memory has *focused* on consequences, except maybe Dragon Age: Origins in some ways.

We see implications. We see outcomes. But we don't see consequences in the 'importance or relevance' sense. We can choose to place importance on the outcomes as the players, but we don't have to. It doesn't take the Krogan out of the equation. It doesn't keep you from taking Rannoch forces with you. It doesn't stop the activation of the Crucible.

But after this?

"Sure, everything will change, but on our terms."

For the larger part, Shepard's journey is more to do with the approach of his resistance to the Reapers, instead of what he'll do to manage the galaxy. That doesn't mean there isn't some element of it, but when you look at the script, it's rarely *about* it. Shepard is forced into it by greater authorities (Cerberus, Alliance, Reapers), and even as he can become legend, he's still just a man in a single ship, with circumstances forcing people of authority to listen to him - but not put him in charge of their societies and factions in themselves.

The EC endings do imply more though. For Breath Destroy, we can imagine Shepard staying attached with the Alliance and rising in rank, even if only for ceremony. For Control, we see Shepard as an entity that appears to be in control of the Reapers. In Synthesis, we see Shepard's 'essence' influence the status of the entire galaxy. But while playing the game, acting in conversations, making decisions.. we're not any of these things. We're a single soldier, given a monumental task, and only very gradually coming into any sort of power about it, while still being more in negotiation/alliance with other bigger leaders.

To compare, it seems that Dragon Age: Inquisition won't be just that. Instead of just working with continental leaders, the Inquisitor is the first protagonist who makes his mark on the game world as the game continues, not just as it ends. We'll probably be more forced into the Inquisitor role even more strongly than Shepard is forced into the Commander role (he can act like he's a more independent leader or an outright legend, but he still knows he's 'just a soldier'), but the possibilities as the Inquisitor will imo be much more broad in the plot than ever before in a BW game. More about consequence, a little less about choice. (so to speak)
 
 
 

So I guess you would like to have more power to change things in the universe? Like choosing a king or queen and you could see the consequences of the person you have chosen sooner?

Basically. Let the interactions between powers occur in the plot as consequences of our actions. In ME3, the most we see of that is a few elements of dealings with the Genophage and Rannoch, but nearly everything else is Shepard sorta being guided along a more singular path. You're always gonna have to deal with that jerk dalatrass, you're always going to have a stubborn Quarian fleet, you're always gonna be *told what to do* by others.

 
 

What kind of consequencess would you have liked to be in ME?

What is only teased in ME3.

Fates of species, societies, power structures. How to approach new species and if that'll influence how known species operate. Putting investment into the galaxy somewhat akin to researching upgrades in ME2. Things not just explained in news reports and war assets, but in the more open-world experience that we can explore.

 
 

Like I have said before I don't need big consequences of the choices I have made. Like saving the council in ME1 didn't have much consequences if you think about the story. The whole council was just flying around with their ship in ME2 and nothing what I had done to them had any meaning. But I liked it. I like the way they just didn't care about Shepard's warnings about Reapers. I just couldn't change them. If I'm not awfully wrong there is one Turian guy in Citadel who is very happy to see you if you saved the council but if you kill the council he will be quite hostile.

I don't NEED anything. By the end of ME3 and its DLC cycle, I felt that I understood enough of that Bioware was coming from with Commander Shepard and his war against the Reapers.

But I'd be very up for variety.

I've brought up the Hamlet Elcor and Pyjak Macbeth before. (anyone can correct me on my understanding of Shakespeare)

Hamlet was a person who lost a loved one and was facing a threat. His mission appeared just - to kill the murderer. Revenge, or at least retribution.
We're on his side. We understand his cause.
However, as we see more of his personality and especially his actions, we can see him as worse than just his cause. We see him do terrible acts, betray friends, do anything to get the chance to take his revenge, even as he relents/is forced to relent time and again. When he finally takes it, that's nice and all, but the play is more about who Hamlet *was* in his quest, and whether that is something to support. Is it okay, for example, to kill the murderer of your father if you drag along several others to their deaths, or is it better to negotiate within the system in hopes of any justice?

Macbeth is a more clearly good-inclined person, but requires more and more power. He wishes to be king, but he ends up a tyrant. The themes of this play have more to do with ambition (not revenge) and what one will do to secure power and authority. What can corrupt a king the more they employ violence and manipulation to achieve their goals. Eventually, he and Lady Macbeth more or less descend into madness, and the audience may be left to speculate (as opposed to Hamlet's "What's too much to exact just revenge?") something like "What's too much to achieve destiny?", a destiny foretold by the witches at the start of the play. He suffers hallucinations, insanity, and deep angst, even as he becomes more solidified in his role. Eventually, Macbeth definitely does too much, and there is revolt against him.

Elcor Hamlet - Mass Effect 1, 2, 3
Pyjak Macbeth - Citadel DLC? Is this a tease for the next game? Let's see..

[Abelas Forever!]

Swobyj I think I now understand your point and what you want. I was also trying to explain that the consequences in ME series mattered to me and it's ok to me that the consequences might not be huge and sometimes small consequences like in the case of the council felt satisfying.

[SwobyJ]

Swobyj I think I now understand your point and what you want. I was also trying to explain that the consequences in ME series mattered to me and it's ok to me that the consequences might not be huge and sometimes small consequences like in the case of the council felt satisfying.

Yep and I'm with you. It all worked for me except on London and in more side examples like Kal'reegar.

[RZIBARA]

Just like my great Uncle Ben always told me: "with great power comes great responsibility"

[Lady Abstract]

itd be nice if mass effect 4 allowed us to see the consequences of our choices from mass effect trilogy. Even without shepard it would be nice to see what happens with the Krogans if you cured the genophage or not and with either wreav or wrex. Or what happens if you let the geth live and let the quarians die and viceversa or if you made peace. Things like that would be very nice

[Reorte]

itd be nice if mass effect 4 allowed us to see the consequences of our choices from mass effect trilogy. Even without shepard it would be nice to see what happens with the Krogans if you cured the genophage or not and with either wreav or wrex. Or what happens if you let the geth live and let the quarians die and viceversa or if you made peace. Things like that would be very nice

I disagree, partially from wanting to wipe out much of the mess of ME3 (although you mention the good part of it there), but also from the simple acknowledgement that it would have too much impact on the universe, unless it was handled in a totally unsatisfactory, brush-it-under-the-carpet manner. From a purely practical point of view choices that significantly affect the setting are unmanageable between stories (and therefore should be completely avoided unless you know for certain there won't be any more stories in that universe), and smaller, more personal ones should be irrelevent in the next story with different characters.