311 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

Majority of people choose the good decisions not only because it's good but also because it allows them the best benefits. Decision like killing squadmates or violence  often result in having less characters or in ME3 case, hinder the ability from getting the best ending. I like decisions like Samara and Morinth whereas if you kill the squadmate, you get a different character. Decisions like killing wrex and/or Mordin allow you to have the support of both Salarian and Krogan. I want more of these decisions instead of paragon = best outcome, regenade = worse outcome. 

[FKA_Servo]

Paragon/Renegade choices could do with a good deal more nuance, this is very true. I'd scrap the whole thing and rebuild it completely.

 

I don't want everything to turn into a puddle of morally grey soup in the name of "realism" though.

[Xen]

Not really "evil" but going mostly Renegade throughout the decisions of the Rannoch arc (killing heretics, supporting Xen and Gerrel in arguments) got you a better outcome just like shooting Mordin with Wreav around for the genophage did.

The real issue is that going full paragon on everything gives you near perfect results, if not the absolute maximum in all cases (Curing with Wrex and Eve or saving the Heretics and supporting Tali/Raan only loses a couple dozen war assets). Going full renegade on everything will give you some severe penalties (no Eve to rally nearly half the Krogan war assets and If Wrex is around you lose the other half too, no Legion to broker ceasefire so you lose potentially an entire faction).

Killing the Rachni in ME1 for example serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than forcing you to kill them again in ME3 or actually facing a penalty. Ideally, you should be penalized for being overly idealistic just as often as you already are for being too trigger happy.

[Battlebloodmage]

Not really "evil" but going mostly Renegade throughout the decisions of the Rannoch arc (killing heretics, supporting Xen and Gerrel in arguments) got you a better outcome just like shooting Mordin with Wreav around for the genophage did.

The real issue is that going full paragon on everything gives you near perfect results, if not the absolute maximum in all cases (Curing with Wrex and Eve or saving the Heretics and supporting Tali/Raan only loses a couple dozen war assets). Going full renegade on everything will give you some severe penalties (no Eve to rally nearly half the Krogan war assets, no Legion to broker peace so you lose potentially an entire faction).

Killing the Rachni in ME1 for example serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than forcing you to kill them again in ME3 or actually facing a penalty.

Is destroying Eve's cure a good or evil decision if you didn't know about Eve back in ME2? Plus, I thought cured Eve can only die if you delay the mission for too long, so it's not really good or bad. I do see that these decisions need to be spread out more. It's about choices, so while the developers may lean more toward the good choices, they kinda make it so that evil choices are not preferred, especially when the best ending is tied with the paragon Shepard. Most evil decisions give me low war assets. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare should not concern themselves with questions of good or evil.

We should get the outcomes that make sense, under the circumstances.

[Amirit]

Majority of people choose the good decisions not only because it's good but also because it allows them the best benefits. Decision like killing squadmates or violence  often result in having less characters or in ME3 case, hinder the ability from getting the best ending. I like decisions like Samara and Morinth whereas if you kill the squadmate, you get a different character. Decisions like killing wrex and/or Mordin allow you to have the support of both Salarian and Krogan. I want more of these decisions instead of paragon = best outcome, regenade = worse outcome.

 
Do not see the issue other then "I want to be a murderer but still get the hero status and all benefits of everyones love". Either you are who you are (if you ARE an evil  murderer) and accept consequences of killing rampage or you are truly (or cleverly) good guy and get better results with people because you help them instead of killing them. Sounds logic to me.

[SubjectZer0]

If you let the Council die in the first Mass Effect they get replaced by a newer better Council. Saving the Collector base gives you some extra war assets and I think it makes the most sense, story wise. Killing the Geth in Mass Effect 2 during Legion's loyalty mission is looked at as good and Legion tells you that now there's less geth to fight but I'm not sure if it actually effects gameplay and if rewriting them makes you have more enemies. Killing um...whats her name, the asari from Saren's base on Virmire that you later see during Grunt's recruitment mission ends up becoming indoctrinated and goes on a mass shooting and kills a bunch of people if you let her live. Not sure it affects war assets or anything though. There's a ton of other stuff but that's all I can really think of right now.

[Valkyrja]

 
Do not see the issue other then "I want to be a murderer but still get the hero status and all benefits of everyones love". Either you are who you are (if you ARE an evil  murderer) and accept consequences of killing rampage or you are truly (or cleverly) good guy and get better results with people because you help them instead of killing them. Sounds logic to me.

 

Maybe there is a problem with how your scenarios are written if that is what your choices are...

[Xen]

Is destroying Eve's cure a good or evil decision if you didn't know about Eve back in ME2? Plus, I thought cured Eve can only die if you delay the mission for too long, so it's not really good or bad. I do see that these decisions need to be spread out more. It's about choices, so while the developers may lean more toward the good choices, they kinda make it so that evil choices are not preferred, especially when the best ending is tied with the paragon Shepard. Most evil decisions give me low war assets. 

Good and evil are relative moral concerns, but destroying the cure data objectively becomes a poor decision from a practicality standpoint with its only eventual benefit being able to sabotage with Mordin living (and he is worth a fraction of what Eve is), much like a lot of the Renegade choices.

Paragon choices rarely if ever have any real utilitarian drawbacks. You may lose 5 or 10 war assets here or there for just picking upper right and left (when possible), but it's not a big deal. Meanwhile, going Renegade only will give you huge drawbacks. Ideally, you should have to mix being diplomatic and pragmatic, and both being too idealistic (Paragon) or too pessimist and untrusting (Renegade) will give you poor outcomes. I'd like to see something like the Geth actually turning back to the Reapers if you let the heretics live than side with them later on, for example. Or destroying the Collector base locking you out of one of the better endings somehow. Alternatively, Renegade should get some benefits, such as exterminating the Rachni meaning that you don't have to face Ravager enemies later on or something as an example.

 

[Agent69]

It would make it more realistic. No good deed goes unpunished, unless you are playing Mass Effect and nice guys finish last, unless you are playing Mass Effect.

[Hazegurl]

Majority of people choose the good decisions not only because it's good but also because it allows them the best benefits. Decision like killing squadmates or violence  often result in having less characters or in ME3 case, hinder the ability from getting the best ending. I like decisions like Samara and Morinth whereas if you kill the squadmate, you get a different character. Decisions like killing wrex and/or Mordin allow you to have the support of both Salarian and Krogan. I want more of these decisions instead of paragon = best outcome, regenade = worse outcome. 

I agree, I want both renegade and paragon type choices to come with benefits and consequences.  If you make a choice because you want to "save everyone" it should blow up in your face, especially when the circumstances all point to that decision being a craptastic one.  Just like if you run around murdering everyone for...reasons. Should be met with some consequences. A good mix up would be awesome.

[Amirit]

Maybe there is a problem with how your scenarios are written if that is what your choices are...

Not exactly MY scenarios but regardless - let's get it clear for once. Let's say we have a choice to help the ambassador of some nation and it will yield us support of that nation. Common alternative is to kill that ambassador and as a result to loose support of that nation. You are saying what exactly? That alternative should be anything else but a murder or that even if you kill the ambassador nation has to give you support regardless? If the first one - then what should it be (to be "not good" at the same time), if second - why would you expect support and good reward at all?

[Spacepunk01]

I think it would be great if the easy path ("evil") rewarded you in the short term, while the hard path ("good") rewarded you in the long term. You could get some immediate benefits from treating people bad, but it might come back to haunt you later. You might struggle more if you try to be a good person, but it might benefit you at some point in the future.

[Hazegurl]

Not exactly MY scenarios but regardless - let's get it clear for once. Let's say we have a choice to help the ambassador of some nation and it will yield us support of that nation. Common alternative is to kill that ambassador and as a result to loose support of that nation. You are saying what exactly? That alternative should be anything else but a murder or that even if you kill the ambassador nation has to give you support regardless? If the first one - then what should it be (to be "not good" at the same time), if second - why would you expect support and good reward at all?

Your scenario automatically sets it up as support = automatic good outcome vs kill = auto bad outcome.  What nation is it?  Is it a nation known for betraying allies? Does the nation violate any sort of International peace treaty? Would other allies turn on you for supporting this nation? Do the people of that nation hate the ambassador and want him removed from power? If so then why and would supporting him ruin your relations to the people of that nation anyway?

[Patchwork]

I'm not sure why ME even needs a morality metre but if it's there then ITA the consequences should be mixed. Sometimes doing the right thing blows up in your face, sometimes you have to do a horrible thing to stop an even worse thing from happening.  

[Valkyrja]

Not exactly MY scenarios but regardless - let's get it clear for once. Let's say we have a choice to help the ambassador of some nation and it will yield us support of that nation. Common alternative is to kill that ambassador and as a result to loose support of that nation. You are saying what exactly? That alternative should be anything else but a murder or that even if you kill the ambassador nation has to give you support regardless? If the first one - then what should it be (to be "not good" at the same time), if second - why would you expect support and good reward at all?

 

They should come up with something other than do the right thing and get the good outcome versus be an ass and get the bad outcome.

[Xen]

Not exactly MY scenarios but regardless - let's get it clear for once. Let's say we have a choice to help the ambassador of some nation and it will yield us support of that nation. Common alternative is to kill that ambassador and as a result to loose support of that nation. You are saying what exactly? That alternative should be anything else but a murder or that even if you kill the ambassador nation has to give you support regardless? If the first one - then what should it be (to be "not good" at the same time), if second - why would you expect support and good reward at all?

To use your metaphor, I'd like to sometimes be given potentialities wherein not shooting that ambassador makes his questionably allied nation turn hostile later on. Look at the Geth, Krogan and Rachni in universe. They have all been untrustworthy mass murderers in the past, yet nothing happens in any of the various Paragon permutations of where you can trust them as your allies. Everything works out just fine even if you give Wreav the Cure or save the Heretics then trust the geth with the genocidal Geth VI in charge. Rachni can blow up in your face for saving them, but only if you already tried to genocide them away once before, and in that case "saving" the breeder queen is STILL a Renegade decision for some reason.

[Battlebloodmage]

Not exactly MY scenarios but regardless - let's get it clear for once. Let's say we have a choice to help the ambassador of some nation and it will yield us support of that nation. Common alternative is to kill that ambassador and as a result to loose support of that nation. You are saying what exactly? That alternative should be anything else but a murder or that even if you kill the ambassador nation has to give you support regardless? If the first one - then what should it be (to be "not good" at the same time), if second - why would you expect support and good reward at all?

That's basically what happened with Mordin's scenario. If you kill him and Wrex's dead, you could get the help from both the Salarian and Krogan. In your scenario, maybe a different faction offers you support if you screw over the ambassador and the other nation. 

[themikefest]

The evil that men do or in this case, the evil that my femshep did. Hahaha. I support an evil, ruthless playthrough. 

[Amirit]

Your scenario automatically sets it up as support = automatic good outcome vs kill = auto bad outcome.  What nation is it?  Is it a nation known for betraying allies? Does the nation violate any sort of International peace treaty? Would other allies turn on you for supporting this nation?

Good points. Though since we discuss ME the idea is we have a HUGE threat, so big that everything else - all differences! - have to be forgotten.

Now, there is no such thing as a "treacherous nation". If one president made a bad decision does it mean the country has to be excluded from reliable nations ever since? No matter who is making decisions?
Peace treaty - ambassador came to you openly, no violations of any law (common case in the game). And request is legal but anyone else is too busy to help or have other priorities - so, go ahead, it's your time.
Add to it common (for the game, we are still talking about the game) necessity to build up reputation for you PC. And you get a typical ME quest where "help=paragon choice=good outcome".

So, what would be "non paragon" choice in that case?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

There should be three paths.

 

1) your typical white knight idealism - this may win you popularity points, but may cost you benefits such as tech.

2) pragmatic choices - these won't usually win you popularity contests, but will benefit your team most.

3) dastardly choices - these won't win you anything but being evil for lols. Will cost you popularity, but may benefit your character personally.

[BabyPuncher]

Hmm. Do I feel like writing an essay on this, and why the general video game community's understanding of how morality and it should be implemented is very poor?

[Amirit]

There should be three paths.

 

1) your typical white knight idealism - this may win you popularity points, but may cost you benefits such as tech.

2) pragmatic choices - these won't usually win you popularity contests, but will benefit your team most.

3) dastardly choices - these won't win you anything but being evil for lols. Will cost you popularity, but may benefit your character personally.

 

Sounds good, really (what was that game where "good choices" could easily kill you? "Last of us"?) but it's all about type of game. When it's a personal level - like, you saved a half dead guy, he got better and kill you to get your money - it's one thing, to be a representative of your nation in the intergalactic community - is another. And even in the first case - one thing is to survive in a situation when "alone" means "safe", and another, when "safety is in numbers" and everyone in the group understands it.

 

If we truly have "paragon\renegade" system (and heroic fantasy, even scifi fantasy is about good heroes), then we do in fact have truly objectively good decisions and it would be "out of character" for the game to reward "bad" choices.

The question is - are we a hero in MEA or just a surviver in the world?  

[Battlebloodmage]

Good points. Though since we discuss ME the idea is we have a HUGE threat, so big that everything else - all differences! - have to be forgotten.

Now, there is no such thing as a "treacherous nation". If one president made a bad decision does it mean the country has to be excluded from reliable nations ever since? No matter who is making decisions?
Peace treaty - ambassador came to you openly, no violations of any law (common case in the game). And request is legal but anyone else is too busy to help or have other priorities - so, go ahead, it's your time.
Add to it common (for the game, we are still talking about the game) necessity to build up reputation for you PC. And you get a typical ME quest where "help=paragon choice=good outcome".

So, what would be "non paragon" choice in that case?

And you're basically still trying to set up a scenario where you can only choose good. War is more complicated as many nations while perceived as good from our perspective is seen as annoyance by another country, so by refusing this country, we get the support of another country that dislike them, even if they didn't do anything wrong, like with Taiwan and China or North and South Korea. As with the Krogan, it's good to cure them, but it's also good to have the support of the Salarian because like you said, there is a huge threat, so the extinction of all species should outweight the extinction of one species. If it's underhanded and no one knows about it, then it could actually be the paragon decision in the big picture since it could potentially save the universe by gathering as much forces as possible. 

[AlanC9]

Sounds good, really (what was that game where "good choices" could easily kill you? "Last of us"?) but it's all about type of game. When it's a personal level - like, you saved a half dead guy, he got better and kill you to get your money - it's one thing, to be a representative of your nation in the intergalactic community - is another. And even in the first case - one thing is to survive in a situation when "alone" means "safe", and another, when "safety is in numbers" and everyone in the group understands it.
 
If we truly have "paragon\renegade" system (and heroic fantasy, even scifi fantasy is about good heroes), then we do in fact have truly objectively good decisions and it would be "out of character" for the game to reward "bad" choices.
The question is - are we a hero in MEA or just a surviver in the world?

I don't follow the argument here. The bigger the scale, the more likely "good" choices are to work out positively?

Your other post sounds like you want the dice loaded so this will turn out to be the case, but I don't see any reason why this should be the case in the game any more than it is ITRW.