96 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

He's completely right in the sense that being a perfect Paragon always leads to an ideal outcome. I can't remember a single instance in the entire trilogy where being the Knight in Shining Armor doesn't yield perfect results.

 

Sure, there are individual instances where ****** up or not doing certain quests leads to problems, but if you do all quests as a perfect Paragon, you get ideal results across the board. There is no point in making sacrifices or weighing your options if you are living in a universe where there is no such thing as a necessary sacrifice.

 

They fixed that in the ending.

 

The moraly just are still crying about it.

[Lennard Testarossa]

They fixed that in the ending.

 

The moraly just are still crying about it.

 

One of my biggest worries about hating the ME 3 ending (and I do hate it with passion) is getting lumped in with all the people who hate it because it didn't allow them to be the hero. And that the 'lesson' that developers take away from it is to always allow their players to be the Knight in Shining Armor.

[Farangbaa]

One of my biggest worries about hating the ME 3 ending (and I do hate it with passion) is getting lumped in with all the people who hate it because it didn't allow them to be the hero. And that the 'lesson' that developers take away from it is to always allow their players to be the Knight in Shining Armor.

 

Well if they don't do it they aren't 'listening to their fans'! 

They are all the spokespeople of 'the fans' you know?

[Dubozz]

that title lol. that was a good laugh mate

 

 

No unpredicatble/bad consequences.

 

unpredicatble/bad consequences

 

unpredicatble

 

bad

[DeathScepter]

A good example of a unpredictable result of a paragon action should be that if you save the Rachni Queen she will betray you regardless if it is her accord or by Indoctrination. Rachni is an unknown and you can't truly trust her to keep her word. But we know that in the actual game that With the Paragon route with the Rachni Queen in ME1 and ME3 is a good thing for the player. 

[Display Name Owner]

Well, there is the Geth Station one, where if you destroyed rather than converting the Heretics Legion tells you in ME3 that it was the right decision and the Quarians incurred less losses (if I remember rightly). But generally, yeah, it always irked me that Paragon gets rewarded for taking big leaps of optimistic faith. He's bloody lucky the Rachni were in fact nice guys who were just manipulated by Sovereign (or the Leviathans, I forget who it turned out to be), and that the Collector Base was of no practical benefit and only turned out to be useful for making Cerberus extra-stupid. And that curing the Genophage and having Wrex and Eve alive apparently solves all problems with the Krogan (if you choose to believe the post-ending slides, which I choose not to).

 

Not that everything should go wrong, and I'm not saying Renegade should always be right either. I just think making all the 'right' choices should be about practicality, regardless of alignment. 

 

That said, I do understand why Bioware wouldn't want to make players feel like they're being 'punished' for doing the 'right' thing, but I don't think they should be rewarded for well-intentioned foolishness either.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I don't have a problem with games making ideal outcomes available as long as you have to put some work into getting them. Where Mass Effect could probably do a little better is to have some of the characters less willing to listen to Shepard depending on prior interactions and choices. For example, if you've been playing Renegade and saying you think the genophage was justified, then at the last minute in Mordin's ME2 loyalty mission you tell him to keep the data because the krogan deserve a cure, maybe he destroys it anyway. Or, if you're just generally rude and uncommunicative, maybe they don't give you their loyalty missions or they ignore your advice.

 

The genophage and quarian/geth conflicts in ME3 did effectively make use of multiple variables from the previous two games as opposed to just picking a single dialogue option. And there is something to be said for Paragon/Renegade choices earlier in the games opening up future such choices later on, though I prefer the cumulative reputation bar in ME3 to the one-way-or-the-other system in ME2 or the Charm/Intimidate points in ME1.

 

The Witcher games do tend to throw more unexpected consequences at the player, though Geralt's personality is a little less malleable than Shepard's, and I didn't always understand the context and background of some of what was happening. For example, at one point in TW2, there's a conversation where Geralt and Triss can discuss leaving Roche and all the recent political conflict behind and going somewhere else, but it was left unclear what that would really mean. Where else would they go? Why were they with Foltest at the start of the game, and why did Geralt never (as far as we saw) meet back up with the other Witchers from the start of TW1? What other priorities might they have that they would presumably pursue if they did leave?

 

With Mass Effect, I was able to get a clear picture of the Alliance, the Council, and the state of affairs in the galaxy pretty quickly, and making Shepard a Spectre supplies a strong motivation for maintaining the same general priorities despite a range of attitudes and personality traits that the player might choose to adopt.

[GimmeDaGun]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. One of my biggest complains concerning the trilogy is the lack of real weight to almost all the decisions the 3 games present: don't get me wrong there's weight to them, but they are so predictable that it's almost painful: 

 

You are a renegade = cliche bad boy almost to the point of being a really stupid cartoon villain => you'll be punished for your evil deeds: no matter what you do the consequences of your ruthless or calculated deeds always lead to a greater evil. You are a paragon = nauseatingly typical hollywood/disney hero guy => all your ridiculously angelic deeds will be rewarded and lead to something absolutely rainbow tinted and great.

 

Yeah, the ending takes this away from people: thankfully, if you ask me. At least there's one really difficult decision in the whole trilogy which makes you uncomfortable and forces you to think twice. I'm not suprised though that so many are upset about the final moments, since it was made in a whole different spirit. Up until then you were pretty much in control of everything, while in the end you were in control of the decision but not of its consequences nor the circumstances. Which is great: I expected this from the whole trilogy. I never got it. 

 

Which is funny since ME sometimes struggles really hard to be the dark sci-fi saga it aimed to be... but somehow it ended up somewhere half-way between the mature sci-fi adventure and the disney-star wars type of light hearted family entertainment space opera.

 

This predictable moral system and choices and consequences system is uninteresting in my opinion. The story does not dare to take risks and surprise the player. Like as it was created for little kids or teenagers exclusively. It tries to teach you morally instead of make you thrilled and be on edge, thinking hard when you make those decisions.

 

In my opinion there's no real sense in making a choices and consquences game if you make it this over-simplified and straight forward. The only thing you will get is a predictable good guy or bad guy story with all it's moral lessons: not thrill, no need for thinking, no surprises, no uncomfortable moments just a simple puppet show: my Shepard, my Shepard, my Shepard... blah, blah, blah. Hell even the side-characters do as you wish and love you no matter what. There's no sense of real tension or dynamics between the characters whatsoever (except for a very few cases). 

 

The Witcher games in this regard are far superior. Thoses games are starring an already existing short story and novel protagonist, yet they give you more opportunity to role-play the character than ME which gives you a blank slate character which you define by his or her deeds or decisions. Well you do, but you do it way too much or over the top. Your decisions in ME do not only represent your control over your character, but also over the whole situation, consequences included. No surprise so many are so entitled to their so called "own Shepards" and their stories. 

 

ME while a great game trilogy is only an action-adventure game with a very simple and predictable interactivity (c&c and moral) system - a powertrip for youngsters and some not so hardcore, but great entertainment for those who would prefer something intellectually and skill-wise more challenging. TW is a great and challenging action-RPG with a very well thought out moral and c&c system which makes you sweat many times and tend to challenge you a lot (in many ways). It's no powertrip and definitely not a fairy-tale for young people who look for their heroics-fix and predictable moral story. 

 

I hope the next ME will be a lot more ambitious, challenging and mature in this regard. 

[Reorte]

There are certainly huge issues with the whole morality system and sure, there's a load of over-simplified stuff but some of the people who complain about it really are stuck up their own backsides (anyone who whinges about "power trip fantasies" for starters) when they lurch towards a ludicrously opposite extreme, where not one single thing can be straightforward and not one single choice can have a clearly optimal outcome.

[Daemul]

Due to the way Bioware advertised Mass Effect 1, I was expecting the game to turn out to be something like The Witcher in space, but it turned out very differently. Bioware eventually lived up to their original advertising with the ending, and the reactions to it were glorious.

[Oni Changas]

I let Samara kill herself and executed her stuck up daughter many a time as a renegade. Don't threaten my reneShep. He'll wreck your ****.

[Perpetual Nirvana]

You are a renegade = cliche bad boy almost to the point of being a really stupid cartoon villain => you'll be punished for your evil deeds: no matter what you do the consequences of your ruthless or calculated deeds always lead to a greater evil. You are a paragon = nauseatingly typical hollywood/disney hero guy => all your ridiculously angelic deeds will be rewarded and lead to something absolutely rainbow tinted and great.

 

To be honest that's a problem with the majority of games that have a morality system, not just Mass Effect.

[KaiserShep]

My issue lies more with the sheer scope of many of the decisions, rather than their unpredictability. None of the Mass Effect games had much in the way of intricate plotting anyway. You were basically traversing the galaxy, using aliens and humans alike as target practice. As sH0tgUn jUliA puts it, Mass Effect is basically an Arnold movie. It's one-liners and explosions.

[ZipZap2000]

It was always a Hollywood movie with two scripts, you decide which to go with at what point. Look at Mass Effect 1 one liners from an invincible hero who was morally infallible no matter his actions, even the ending was dripping with 'rock star action hero super warrior'. Shepard was standing atop of a dead reaper while epic music plays in the backround.

 

It wasn't until ME2 the game went a little bit deeper and the ability to role play scenarios actually starts to blossom, if only for the sake of the fact that you are nearing the end of the journey where all your long term decisions will start to have serious consequences and most of you short term decisions have come into or about to come into play. Up until that point you're really just going through the motions exploring unknown dialogue and actions, to an extent you do the same thing with ME2.

 

Don't get me wrong i still think it's an action RPG and I love it to death but I don't confuse it with being the infinite realm of possibility that Bioware wants you to think it is at its heart it still remains a Hollywood style action shoot em up with two scripts it's just a slightly more agile one

 

The problem however is that Bioware decided to tell people it was more than that and their decisions actually matter and that those decisions would have consequences beyond anything they could imagine, like 'serious repercussions' if you happened to 'cheat' (why is it cheating btw?) or 16 completely different endings etc. That only led to people thinking the game was more than what it was for me it's still an action movie space soap opera with rpg elements and you decide which script you want to go with.

[SporkFu]

It was always a Hollywood movie with two scripts, you decide which to go with at what point. Look at Mass Effect 1 one liners from an invincible hero who was morally infallible no matter his actions, even the ending was dripping with 'rock star action hero super warrior'. Shepard was standing atop of a dead reaper while epic music plays in the backround.

Yeah, ME2 started with shep dying, after that. Which was frakkin' awesome, imho. I loved being a rockstar action hero super warrior in ME1. That was part of the appeal. And hell, the galaxy that ME1 revealed was a fascinating place first time I played it. 

 

Ah well, ME2 made up for it with the suicide mission. I never had a shep die on the suicide mission, so in all my playthroughs shep makes that big leap across the gap into the Normandy's airlock, while Joker provides covering fire.... and doesn't hit a thing. The guys were right, the little a**hole needs target practice. Glyph, we need an immediate man-emergency intervention... and don't forget my margy. 

[Farangbaa]

Whenever a cutscene happens in ME, I think of these guys:
 


1000s of bullets, nobody dies or even gets hit. Except when one of these guys grabs a gun and has to hit an impossible target.
Hit a rope 200 meters away with a pistol? No problem for these guys. But shooting an actual person even in the arm is impossible.

[SporkFu]

Whenever a cutscene happens in ME, I think of these guys:
 


1000s of bullets, nobody dies or even gets hit. Except when one of these guys grabs a gun and has to hit an impossible target.
Hit a rope 200 meters away with a pistol? No problem for these guys. But shooting an actual person even in the arm is impossible.

Fake blood wasn't in the budget. Mr. T's bling cost too much. Look at Starbuck, he's thinking, "In my last show I flew a damn viper. Here that old b*****d Peppard gets all the damn cigars!" 

[KrrKs]

A good example of a unpredictable result of a paragon action should be that if you save the Rachni Queen she will betray you regardless if it is her accord or by Indoctrination.

This is exactly what happens in the game (sort of -they are used as reaper troops), and not at all unpredictable. What is unpredictable (and bad) is that there is a Rachni breeder if you killed the Queen in ME1.

 

Things that have been said a thousand times already: [Extensive use of "would/should/could"]

Imo the choices made during the trilogy should have had bigger/noticable effects on the world.

How the Council decision was handled in ME2 was a nice touch.

 

But reaperized rachni troops should only have been (additional) enemies if the Queen actually survived ME1. They should have been used only while the Reapers actually control the queen -but made the missions way harder.

 

In a similar fashion, (at the time I first finished ME2) I expected that the Collector base mission would result in either

a -base intact) more fights with indoctrinated cerberus troops, but weaker Reaper forces (because of some intel/whatever data from the base) -similar to what we have in the final game

or b -base destroyed) Cerberus is no real thread/very limited numbers, but Reaper forces are way stronger/harder to kill.

 

So, I am for noticeable effects of (main) decisions, but in a foreseeable or at least related way. That results should not always be either bad or good either. A trade-of of some kind is actually far more interesting, I find.

 

 

The Witcher games in this regard are far superior. Thoses games are starring an already existing short story and novel protagonist, yet they give you more opportunity to role-play the character than ME which gives you a blank slate character which you define by his or her deeds or decisions. Well you do, but you do it way too much or over the top. Your decisions in ME do not only represent your control over your character, but also over the whole situation, consequences included. No surprise so many are so entitled to their so called "own Shepards" and their stories.

I don't think this is superior, it is just different (and makes it easier for the writers).

Personally, I find that I'm much more immersed in games with "blank slate" protagonists (like Mass Effect or Fallout) than I am in games where the pc has a predetermined personality (like the Witcher or Deus Ex:HR).

I can role play Shepard (in ME1 or 2) pretty much like I want, while I can role-play Geralt only to a very limited degree.

[GimmeDaGun]

There are certainly huge issues with the whole morality system and sure, there's a load of over-simplified stuff but some of the people who complain about it really are stuck up their own backsides (anyone who whinges about "power trip fantasies" for starters) when they lurch towards a ludicrously opposite extreme, where not one single thing can be straightforward and not one single choice can have a clearly optimal outcome.

 

 

Why? Is it not a power trip fantasy? I very much think so it is. Basically you are in controll of every decision (outcomes included) and situation up until the end (when for a few moments you are not anymore), also almost everyone wants to be your bro/drinking buddy, sexual partner in the whole game, you are always treated as some famous guy. Everybody either fears you or adores you, but they know you and treat you as something special. Shepard is like some hero-celebrity: Mr or Ms Center of The Whole Universe who decides the fate of the galaxy several times with a few no-brainer, two-bit decisions. You can also wipe your boots in your comrades yet they still love you and respect you. etc. etc. etc (beside a few refreshing exceptions).

 

To me it looks exactly like a power trip fantasy, where you do not act only as a protagonist but as the director of the whole game. Shepard as a character (and thus the player) is never really challenged mentally and is always in control (except for the ending and a few scripted parts of the story when all control is taken away from you): you don't make decisions at all, you just choose from different outcomes since every single decision is predictable. You do good, everything's fine, you get your reward, people are happy. You do bad, you screw it up, you cause senseless pain and destruction for no real reason, people are unhappy. None of the sacrifices or logical but painful ("you can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs") decisions ever pay off. On the contraray, you are always punished for them. None of the illogical but idealistic decisions (eg. saving the council) bite your ass in any way. You always get rewarded for them.

 

...and this is my problem with the moral and c&c system of the ME games. I don't want every decision to be overcomplicated. Certainly there should be more straightforward decisions with less moral ambiguity. Even the slightly more realistic and darker The Witcher games have them (yet they are accused of the opposite). I'm only saying that a game which prides itself on presenting hard decisions should present hard decisions with consequences with weight to them. Well the ME games deliver zero (ok, not zero, but almost there) hard decisions. This is my problem.  

 

I agree with ZipZap it is a Hollywood style rock star hero flick, and not so much an rpg where you do get to make decisions (even if prescripted due to the limitations of the medium). 

[Reorte]

Why? Is it not a power trip fantasy? I very much think so it is.

It's only a power trip fantasy if that's what people play it for and what they get out of it. Since most people grumble about the impact and over-powerful nature of the decisions it's a fairly pointless complaint. The phrase "power trip fantasy" reads more of an accusation of players than the game.

You do bad, you screw it up, you cause senseless pain and destruction for no real reason, people are unhappy. None of the sacrifices or logical but painful ("you can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs") decisions ever pay off. On the contraray, you are always punished for them. None of the illogical but idealistic decisions (eg. saving the council) bite your ass in any way. You always get rewarded for them.

But this reads more like wanting to be kicked for the sake of it. I think that people often massively overstate the commonality of such decisions to the point that when they do appear they often feel as forced, artificial, and unconvincing as the "I can do anything!" approach.
 
Putting Shepard into messiah mode isn't something that anyone much was impressed with but making a character powerless isn't any better. There should be moments of that and they need to be managed very carefully so that they feel like they flow naturally from the story, ideally so that the player is left thinking "If only I've done something differently". For an RPG decisions really have to be around issues that the player character can reasonably be expected to have some influence in and not just getting steamrollered over by events (play a straightforward shooter for that).

[Coyotebay]

Whenever a cutscene happens in ME, I think of these guys:
 


1000s of bullets, nobody dies or even gets hit. Except when one of these guys grabs a gun and has to hit an impossible target.
Hit a rope 200 meters away with a pistol? No problem for these guys. But shooting an actual person even in the arm is impossible.

It would have been great if Mr. T was in ME.  I would have loved to have him stare down Harbinger and say, "What you lookin' at, FOOL!!"

[GimmeDaGun]

It's only a power trip fantasy if that's what people play it for and what they get out of it. Since most people grumble about the impact and over-powerful nature of the decisions it's a fairly pointless complaint. The phrase "power trip fantasy" reads more of an accusation of players than the game.

But this reads more like wanting to be kicked for the sake of it. I think that people often massively overstate the commonality of such decisions to the point that when they do appear they often feel as forced, artificial, and unconvincing as the "I can do anything!" approach.
 
Putting Shepard into messiah mode isn't something that anyone much was impressed with but making a character powerless isn't any better. There should be moments of that and they need to be managed very carefully so that they feel like they flow naturally from the story, ideally so that the player is left thinking "If only I've done something differently". For an RPG decisions really have to be around issues that the player character can reasonably be expected to have some influence in and not just getting steamrollered over by events (play a straightforward shooter for that).

 

 

I think we misundertand each other. When I say "power trip fantasy", I use it as a descripton for the game and not the player. When I played the game (while I loved it and still do) I always felt that I was playing a game which invited me to play my ultimate childhood power trip fantasy: I can control my own ship, and its crew, I can be the master of all situations (kill without any real kickbacks, wipe my boots on different charaters unpunished, solve all problems for basically everyone, be the rock star of the galaxy, get any woman whom I desire etc. etc.). I never felt being challenged with unpredictable situations or those "hard decisions" which were promised by the creators of the game (God bless them, they still created a great game and universe). So basically the game encourages you to play it as a power fantasy (and little else). Shepard literally is the ultimate, unfallible hero (be him or her a saint or the devil incarnate) and an everyone's man/woman. 

 

Plus as I said it earlier, I'm not expecting all the decisions to be overcomplicated, morally ambiguous and very difficult with far fetched consequences. The only thing I want is some challenge, thrill and decisions which makes you think very hard because they do have some sort of outcome which would give you surprises. Less predictable outcomes for decisions basically and less moral duality: good guy Shep (never wrong) vs bad guy Shep (always wrong). You can make decisions with the pures heart yet you may cause an earthquake with them and vice versa. Anyway, I hope what I'm trying to say comes across as intended. 

[Farangbaa]

I'd prefer most of the decisions to be as delightfully uncomfortable as the decision chamber. That, or like Virmire, where there's simply no 'good' or 'better' decision, just a decision with dire consequences.

[Reorte]

Plus as I said it earlier, I'm not expecting all the decisions to be overcomplicated, morally ambiguous and very difficult with far fetched consequences. The only thing I want is some challenge, thrill and decisions which makes you think very hard because they do have some sort of outcome which would give you surprises. Less predictable outcomes for decisions basically and less moral duality: good guy Shep (never wrong) vs bad guy Shep (always wrong). You can make decisions with the pures heart yet you may cause an earthquake with them and vice versa. Anyway, I hope what I'm trying to say comes across as intended.

I know where you're coming from, I may have read too many posts in the past which give me the impression that some people think it's only good if every decision screws someone over, and a complete bastard protagonist should do great (FWIW in a series where a lot of it is about getting support I think a good guy bias should be more succesful, although nowhere the complete boy scout position).

Outcomes shouldn't be too unpredictable though, to the point where you may as well toss a coin. I was expecting one of at least the rachni or geth decisions to have very big implications and was rather disappointed when the results were overall fairly minor.

I like fairly good all round outcomes to be possible but for the player to really have to work hard for them, so if you get them then it really is an achievement to be proud of. In reality "lucky" would come in to play too but how much that should be thrown into a game is debatable. If the game is sophisticated enough for that to not even be easily achieved with metagaming (and not just by having very hard shooty segments either) then so much the better but we're probably talking serious gameplay technical advances there.

[KaiserShep]

I'd prefer most of the decisions to be as delightfully uncomfortable as the decision chamber. That, or like Virmire, where there's simply no 'good' or 'better' decision, just a decision with dire consequences.

 

I dunno if I would consider the decision chamber to be particularly delightful. It was at that moment that I truly discovered how much I hate autodialogue.

 

Shepard: "There has to be another way."

 

Me: Stop that you imbecile! I approve not of your commentary, and I giveth no feces about other ways!

 

In any case, I found the decision chamber far too arbitrary. It didn't matter if there was some thematic fitting that it played into, the internal logic was totally frayed at that point. The Virmire decision was very simple and straightforward. There was no hokey let-us-think-about-this stuff; it was just a matter of your PC simply not having enough time.