87 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

The first time I played DA:O, I "failed" at the Landsmeet. I later learned I could have gotten the vote, but I chose the wrong arguments to make. There was no upper-left-blue telling me what to say or do to get the optimal outcome, and I thought it made a great twist in my Warden's story.

 

ME3 tossed a lot of huge, galaxy-shaping decisions squarely in Shepard's lap, some of which made little sense in regards to why it was up to the PC to make that choice. Choose to cure the Genophage or no. Choose which species goes extinct. Vhat is your favorite color.

 

The key decision at the Landsmeet was not in the Warden's hands; rather, it was a summary of smaller actions and decisions that came before it. I would hope to see more of that in ME:Next, more through decisions than EMS. Instead of singular decisions with vast consequences tossed in your lap, the player shapes the world around them through more subtle actions which come together to produce an outcome. Even tiny things like the fates of side-quest characters in Redcliffe were influenced by the Warden in DA:O, and gained mention in the epilogue, painting a larger picture.

 

One area this could have been done in ME3 was Tuchanka: Bomb, with relatively minor changes. I've written the changes which could have applied below.

 

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

 

Tuchanka: Bomb

Take Cerberus out of the picture entirely. Victus and his platoon are still tasked with disarming the bomb, hopefully removing it before the Krogan discover its existence. We fight Reapers for the first half of the mission - they've uncovered the bomb, intent on setting it off. By the time we get to the bomb, however, Krogan forces (not Urdnot, but a borderline friendly clan aligned with Urdnot) have driven the Reapers out of the area. The Krogan don't realize the bomb has been armed, and think the Turian forces are there to cover it up (which, again, they essentially are). You have to fight your way through the Krogan to get to the bomb and hold them off long enough for Victus to disarm it. He dies in so doing, but you're left with the question of the last Krogan survivors of the fight, who are in retreat.

 

At this point, Shepard has a choice. Kill the last Krogan witnesses to keep the bomb under wraps (if they don't know about it, they won't be mad about it after the war), or let them go, allowing the Krogan to recover the disarmed bomb before the Turians can do so and planting the seeds of future Krogan/Turian animosity.

 

These kinds of smaller-scale decisions, rather than huge, earth-shattering kabooms, would add up to alter the face of the galaxy going forward.

 

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

 

TL;DR: Would you want to see smaller decisions made over the course of ME:Next shaping the final outcome, or enormous, paradigm-altering decisions dropped in the PC's lap with the optimal solution color-coded in the dialogue wheel for your convenience? What other areas of ME3 could you picture these "influence" situations having come up?

[cap and gown]

Too many variables!

 

Yes, I would like to see lots of unintended consequences. Consequences of smaller actions. And no color coding at all.

[Humakt83]

Too many variables!

 

Yes, I would like to see lots of unintended consequences. Consequences of smaller actions. And no color coding at all.

 

Like Rannoch Arc perhaps, where one of the outcomes was possible by only making certain decisions in ME 2? Or whether being forced to kill VS survivor or not (which was affected by lots of previous choices).

 

That being said, I don't care to see Paragon/Renegade system being implemented into yet another Mass Effect game. If they continue with dialogue wheel, they ought to borrow stuff from DA 2 & DE:HR and possibly DA:I.

[cap and gown]

Like Rannoch Arc perhaps, where one of the outcomes was possible by only making certain decisions in ME 2? Or whether being forced to kill VS survivor or not (which was affected by lots of previous choices).

 

 

Yes, exactly like that. I thought it was quite interesting that for the Rannoch arc, the renegade destroy-the-heretics choice made it easier to achieve peace than the paragon rewrite. The "paragon I win" path seems too trite and predictable.

[DeinonSlayer]

Even those were instances where the optimal outcome was in the form of a blue dialogue option being unlocked - a decision made by Shepard directly. The landsmeet was a culmination of choices made by other characters previously influenced by the PC.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I would most certainly like decisions like that.

[Humakt83]

Even those were instances where the optimal outcome was in the form of a blue dialogue option being unlocked - a decision made by Shepard directly. The landsmeet was a culmination of choices made by other characters previously influenced by the PC.

 

Sure, Tali and Legion could have managed to create peace themselves in that scene. But that would have significantly reduced player interaction in the scene and it wouldn't have had nearly as much impact. You are selling Mass Effect a bit short though, Tali's trial during ME 2 could be solved favorably without having enough Paragon/Renegade. Sort of like Landsmeet in smaller scale.

[AlanC9]

The first time I played DA:O, I "failed" at the Landsmeet. I later learned I could have gotten the vote, but I chose the wrong arguments to make. There was no upper-left-blue telling me what to say or do to get the optimal outcome, and I thought it made a great twist in my Warden's story.

 

Describing the blue option as "telling you what do do" confuses the issue a bit. The blue color is an artifact of the way ME handles Charm and Intimidate checks rather than a guide for the player. In ME you can only make a persuasion attempt if it will succeed, while DA:O's approach lets you make an attempt and fail; the downside is that this requires a little more VO work since the NPC needs to have a line that rejects the PC's attempt. And in the Landsmeet dialogue in question character skill plays no part anyway, since there aren't any checks.

 

Am I right to assume that your argument means that dialogue skills -- NWN Diplomacy et al., Kotor Persuade & Affect Mind, DA:O Coercion, ME1 Charm/Intimidate, ME2 Paragon/Renegade, ME3 P/R + Reputation -- shouldn't have a role in large decisions?

[DeinonSlayer]

Describing the blue option as "telling you what do do" confuses the issue a bit. The blue color is an artifact of the way ME handles Charm and Intimidate checks rather than a guide for the player. In ME you can only make a persuasion attempt if it will succeed, while DA:O's approach lets you make an attempt and fail; the downside is that this requires a little more VO work since the NPC needs to have a line that rejects the PC's attempt. And in the Landsmeet dialogue in question character skill plays no part anyway, since there aren't any checks.

 

Am I right to assume that your argument means that dialogue skills -- NWN Diplomacy et al., Kotor Persuade & Affect Mind, DA:O Coercion, ME1 Charm/Intimidate, ME2 Paragon/Renegade, ME3 P/R + Reputation -- shouldn't have a role in large decisions?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a persuasion mechanic. I'm saying that major decisions shouldn't all hinge on being able to look at the wheel and see you've unlocked the optimal outcome. It removes suspense and, frankly, keeps people from thinking. "Major decisions" shouldn't always be something chosen by the player, they should sometimes be something which occurs independent of any actions taken by the player at that time, instead hinging on how you influenced different involved parties earlier on.

 

For instance (as much as I hate to invoke it again), the Quarian/Geth conflict. I think it'd be interesting if the way relations between them panned out depended not on a single Big Decision on Shepard's part, but more on how you influenced both sides leading up to the climax of the arc - once you hit that point (say, once you kill the Rannoch Reaper), it's outside your power. You could get some very interesting unbalanced outcomes from this. Does one side destroy the other? Does conflict cease with one side dominating the other in some way because they don't trust the other with autonomy (Quarians control Geth, Geth "imprison" Quarians or deny them access to Rannoch again), or do they stand as equals? More nuanced actions influencing the involved parties lead to different outcomes. Consistently siding with one over the other will NOT lead to an optimal balanced outcome. The trial in ME2 let us take all kinds of positions, make all kinds of recommendations to the various admirals - this would simply make those stances count.

[AlanC9]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a persuasion mechanic. I'm saying that major decisions shouldn't all hinge on being able to look at the wheel and see you've unlocked the optimal outcome. It removes suspense and, frankly, keeps people from thinking. "Major decisions" shouldn't always be something chosen by the player, they should sometimes be something which occurs independent of any actions taken by the player at that time, instead hinging on how you influenced different involved parties earlier on.

 
Again, looking at the wheel for available options is merely a side-effect of how persuasion options are presented in the system. You're muddling up two different issues.
 
If presented in the DA:O system. Rannoch would not have shown the player that he had unlocked the optimal outcome. However, the correct move would still have been to attempt the persuade check regardless. I'm not aware of any case in a Bio game in which attempting a persuasion check without adequate skill is penalized, except that the PC may look slightly foolish.

For instance (as much as I hate to invoke it again), the Quarian/Geth conflict. I think it'd be interesting if the way relations between them panned out depended not on a single Big Decision on Shepard's part, but more on how you influenced both sides leading up to the climax of the arc

Priority: Rannoch already does that. Maxed Rep won't light up the persuade options if you haven't made the 5-point threshold. You need both.

[DeinonSlayer]

Again, looking at the wheel for available options is merely a side-effect of how persuasion options are presented in the system. You're muddling up two different issues. If presented in the DA:O system. Rannoch would not have shown the player that he had unlocked the optimal outcome. However, the correct move would still have been to attempt the persuade check regardless. I'm not aware of any case in a Bio game in which attempting a persuasion check without adequate skill is penalized, except that the PC may look slightly foolish.

The Landsmeet didn't come down to a persuasion. It came down to what actions you took beforehand, and which arguments you made once you got there, none of which were highlighted. I actually like the idea of a genre-savvy villain popping up at some point who cuts you off if you've overused coercion. "Enough. Everyone has heard about your silver tongue, and I won't have it."

Priority: Rannoch already does that. Maxed Rep won't light up the persuade options if you haven't made the 5-point threshold. You need both.

It's still all boiling down to a single Big Decision on Shepard's part. What I'm suggesting is that the outcome here (either immediately in terms of who wins, later on in terms of which side if any is in a domineering position (more likely), or both) hinge more on how you influenced both sides prior to that point. Sort of like how in ME1 we could influence Kaidan and Ashley to some degree - in this case, we'd probably be having a talk with Gerrel and Legion beforehand. This is where the use of persuasion would pop up, sort of like cajoling the Illusive Man over the course of the game.

If we were to focus on the post-war balance of power, this probably gets easier to visualize. At that point, Shepard isn't intervening anymore; how they interact comes down to what ideas you put in their heads beforehand. Did you resolve the loyalty conflict? If not, perhaps the Geth treat the returned Quarians less like neighbors and more like inmates in a POW camp (think Occupation of New Caprica), ready to bring the hammer down again at the first sign of trouble. Did you let the Krogan take word of the bomb with them? Let's see the impact in the epilogue slides or another hands-off decision point later in the narrative.

I just thought of a better outline for the former, I'll post it when I get a chance.

[Display Name Owner]

I'd be for this. Not necessarily at the expense of bigger scale choices, although I agree that some of those don't feel like they should have been handled by Shepard at all. It's not Shepard's place to decide whether the Alliance should have saved the Destiny Ascension or not in ME1 for example. But on the other hand, the Genophage decision makes a bit more sense because it's more that Shepard's actual orders are to give them the cure, but it's the Dalatrass who presents the other option under the table. The point is, the choices are all cool as long as they feel plausible imo.

 

Another thing I like about your example is that the Renegade option is genuinely the safer one - the one that ensures the best outcome. I'd like for more choices to actually be right or wrong, instead of things just working out whatever you choose. There was a bit too much of Paragon Shep just getting lucky instead of facing realistic consequences for taking insane chances.

[Farangbaa]

I metagamed the Landsmeet so hard it wasn't even fun anymore.

King/Prince Consort ftw.

But I agree with Deinon, there should be a whole lot more situations in which you don't decide on the spot, but every decision you've made prior decides the outcome.

In ME most decisions (not all), work like this:

Situation + Decicision --> Immediate Effect (with some backlash efffects later on, sometimes)

Whereas Deinon's is more like this:

Situations + Decisions + time --> new situation/(situations+decisions) --> outcome

Or something like that.

[AlanC9]

The Landsmeet didn't come down to a persuasion. It came down to what actions you took beforehand, and which arguments you made once you got there, none of which were highlighted.

Well, duh. I said there was no persuasion check myself, didn't I? (Yep, I did.) And since there's no persuasion check, highlighting wouldn't ever have happened, whatever system we're using. Conversely, if the Landsmeet had included a persuasion check, the line would have been highlighted, either in a color for ME, or with a skill flag in some other system with dialogue skills. Unless you're against informing the player when he's using the character's dialogue skills? If you're not against telling the player that he's using the skills, then since you say you're not against dialogue skills themselves, you should stop complaining about the highlighting per se.

It's still all boiling down to a single Big Decision on Shepard's part.

I wouldn't describe Rannoch as a decision in the first place; if any Shepard can pass the check she should, obviously. Or are we talking about situations where Shepard doesn't have the points or the Rep for the check?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The first time I played DA:O, I "failed" at the Landsmeet. I later learned I could have gotten the vote, but I chose the wrong arguments to make. There was no upper-left-blue telling me what to say or do to get the optimal outcome, and I thought it made a great twist in my Warden's story.

 

ME3 tossed a lot of huge, galaxy-shaping decisions squarely in Shepard's lap, some of which made little sense in regards to why it was up to the PC to make that choice. Choose to cure the Genophage or no. Choose which species goes extinct. Vhat is your favorite color.

 

The key decision at the Landsmeet was not in the Warden's hands; rather, it was a summary of smaller actions and decisions that came before it. I would hope to see more of that in ME:Next, more through decisions than EMS. Instead of singular decisions with vast consequences tossed in your lap, the player shapes the world around them through more subtle actions which come together to produce an outcome. Even tiny things like the fates of side-quest characters in Redcliffe were influenced by the Warden in DA:O, and gained mention in the epilogue, painting a larger picture.

 

One area this could have been done in ME3 was Tuchanka: Bomb, with relatively minor changes. I've written the changes which could have applied below.

 

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

 

All the ME 3 stuff snipped.

 

Your argument is silly because heroism demanded otherwise.

[DeinonSlayer]

Well, duh. I said there was no persuasion check myself, didn't I? (Yep, I did.) And since there's no persuasion check, highlighting wouldn't ever have happened, whatever system we're using. Conversely, if the Landsmeet had included a persuasion check, the line would have been highlighted, either in a color for ME, or with a skill flag in some other system with dialogue skills. Unless you're against informing the player when he's using the character's dialogue skills? If you're not against telling the player that he's using the skills, then since you say you're not against dialogue skills themselves, you should stop complaining about the highlighting per se.

That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm saying that at major turning points in a narrative, such as the Landsmeet and the end of Rannoch, it may be better if the outcome is determined by a stack of minor events and previous persuasions feeding into it, instead of a single, immediate Big Choice.

I wouldn't describe Rannoch as a decision in the first place; if any Shepard can pass the check she should, obviously. Or are we talking about situations where Shepard doesn't have the points or the Rep for the check?

Peace is impossible in a non-import game to begin with, but this doesn't pertain solely to Rannoch. Psychovere did a decent job summarizing.

But again, as I noted, I'd like to see a character once who was actually put off by your attempt to persuade them; if you develop a reputation for having a silver tongue, that reputation precedes you.

"Faridah..."
"Jensen, if you even think of using that CASIE mod I'll smack you."

[Farangbaa]

*snip*

But again, as I noted, I'd like to see a character once who was actually put off by your attempt to persuade them; if you develop a reputation for having a silver tongue, that reputation precedes you.

That would be great.

Swoby posted a topic somewhere (in Scuttlebut I think...) about choosing somekind of 'type' (history/background) for your PC, like 'peacemaker' or 'destroyer', which would shape your options and the way NPCs react to you. This could be expanded upon massively, i.e. you pick 'peacemaker' as your type but act as a 'destroyer' all the time (purely gameplay wise this should be pretty hard to do, as your background isn't that of a 'destroyer'... but I digress). At first NPCs would react to you as if you were a 'peacemaker', but gradually, through your actions, they'd learn you're actually a 'destroyer' and change their reaction accordingly.

This sort of reactivity and control over your character and it's perception is what I have been dreaming about for ages.

[Farangbaa]

How about no?
 
That much reactivity based off a petty choice made at the beginning of the game where players don't have a sense of things yet is dumb.
 
Now...if you're basing it off the player's Paragon or Renegade score of a previous game through an import...that might be workable.

How about you go read again? It's not just a choice you make in the beginning, it's one you can affect and shape during the entire course of the game.

And if anything, they should get rid of Paragon and Renegade, not expand on it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Deinon, you know that my post was a troll.

 

Okay, when I first played ME3, for some reason a lot of my decisions got wiped from my save game. Silver tongue? Well, I don't always take the silver tongue option even when it is available. Red or blue isn't always the way I want things to go. Like with Wrex on Virmire. I shot him. This left me Wreav in ME2 and 3. I don't remember exactly what I did at Tali's trial. I must have turned over the evidence because Tali was just doing some refugee stuff on the Citadel. She wasn't an Admiral. She'd survived the Suicide Mission. Legion was alive. The Rachni Queen was alive, although I killed her in ME3 because "I was sick of fighting Rachni."

 

I faked the genophage, killed off the geth (no red/blue option - not that I would have picked it anyway - I was siding with the Quarians), and completed what I believed to be Shepard's mission - "Dead Reapers is how we end this."

[Bob from Accounting]

Hmm...wow, a meter that tracks that the kind of decisions you made and has people react to it. Like...a meter...that tracks your karma. What a unique idea. Hmm. Where have I seen something like that before? But whatever would you call something like that? A meter...that tracks karma.

 

Really, I don't care if it's 'not just' a choice made at the beginning. The idea of such a choice having that kind of weight to skew everything else is silly.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Not a single choice. He's talking about series of choices. It's plural. Lern two reed.

[Farangbaa]

Hmm...wow, a meter that tracks that the kind of decisions you made and has people react to it. Like...a meter...that tracks your karma. What a unique idea. Hmm. Where have I seen something like that before? But whatever would you call something like that? A meter...that tracks karma.

Really, I don't care if it's 'not just' a choice made at the beginning. The idea of such a choice having that kind of weight to skew everything else is silly.

it's not a meter, it's not about good/evil. You absolutely have no idea.

Good that you don't care. Should make it really easy for you to stop responding to things you don't understand

[cap and gown]

That would be great.

Swoby posted a topic somewhere (in Scuttlebut I think...) about choosing somekind of 'type' (history/background) for your PC, like 'peacemaker' or 'destroyer', which would shape your options and the way NPCs react to you. This could be expanded upon massively, i.e. you pick 'peacemaker' as your type but act as a 'destroyer' all the time (purely gameplay wise this should be pretty hard to do, as your background isn't that of a 'destroyer'... but I digress). At first NPCs would react to you as if you were a 'peacemaker', but gradually, through your actions, they'd learn you're actually a 'destroyer' and change their reaction accordingly.

This sort of reactivity and control over your character and it's perception is what I have been dreaming about for ages.

 

You can already do this in ME1. Pick Earthborn/Ruthless for the initial bonus to renegade points and then go paragon throughout the game.

 

Personally, I am not really interested in a global variable that all NPCs react to. I would like a scale for each individual NPC, and perhaps a scale for a faction. Be friendly/supportive of an NPC, you are more likely to get what you want from them, perhaps at the cost of alienating some other NPC. Same goes for factions. Take actions favorable to one faction, say Krogan, and Krogan NPCs like you more, but at the cost of alienating another faction, say Salarians.

[DeinonSlayer]

You can already do this in ME1. Pick Earthborn/Ruthless for the initial bonus to renegade points and then go paragon throughout the game.
 
Personally, I am not really interested in a global variable that all NPCs react to. I would like a scale for each individual NPC, and perhaps a scale for a faction. Be friendly/supportive of an NPC, you are more likely to get what you want from them, perhaps at the cost of alienating some other NPC. Same goes for factions. Take actions favorable to one faction, say Krogan, and Krogan NPCs like you more, but at the cost of alienating another faction, say Salarians.

Basically taking DA:O's companion approval mixed with FNV's faction approval. Nice.

[Bob from Accounting]

New Vegas' faction approval was a mess, and DA:Os was based on spamming gifts.