311 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

As long as I make any choice (sans ME 3's Refusal ending) the game will still progress and Shepard, the Warden, Hawke, etc, will ultimately "win" defeat the Bad Bad and have the setting their in remain relatively intact. You can't lose. Sure Wrex might be dead, choosing to reprogram the Heretics backfires in ME 3 and tainting the sacred ashes will cause Wynne and Leilana to turn on you, but who cares? You might suffer some consequences depending on your decision and might lose out on potential story content and assets that you might have gained if you picked the other option, but the game never flat out tells you that your decision was ultimately so wrong and stupid that it immediately resulted in your character's demise.

So you're asking for Bio to add more stupid decisions? Well, this would be relatively cheap as long as the Critical Mission Failure screen comes up without too much preamble. I don't see this as being very interesting, but at least it's cheap.

[Dean_the_Young]

One of the keys to 'fixing' the Paragon/Renegade system would have been to decide what they were supposed to be- and then keep them there.

 

Paragon and Renegade fluxuated across the series, ranging from an ideological distinction (ME1 in particular, where certain political opinions were always P/R) to a tone-based distinction (ME2, where sometimes the same options or positions would flip-flop depending on tone). Aside from the structural/mechanical deficiencies of 'must pick P/R in order to keep picking best P/R', the system struggled because it couldn't stay consistent. It had an idea of what it wanted to be- repuation- but it never could decide whether 'Renegade' meant 'militant pragmatic xenonationalist' or 'just plain mean.' Likewise, Paragon bounced between 'law and uncompromising morality' to 'double standards for friends and me,' and ultimately the 'nice guy' option. Oh, and Paragons initiate romance while Renegades break hearts. Or something.

 

If they bring it back again, I think they should focus on the ideological aspect, while keeping space for neutral/non-ideological responses. An ideological morality system has its uses: it's a good way to to establish major themes of the story, it can help organize broad factions of generally like-minded characters rather than being issue-specific, and it offers a much better way to track consistency and strength than what DA typically does. When DA remembers a choice you've made, it's typically on a case-by-case basis.

 

But to be useful, it has to be relevant. And to be relevant, it needs to be specific and reliable, and probably needs a way to help note and track dissenters on various topics. Just because you're a Renegade doesn't mean you support the Genophage- and while it may be useful to assume such, at least give the player a chance to refute that assumption.

[AlanC9]

 
Very few people in this thread seem to recognize what the actual point of choices in games are.

Don't leave us all in suspense. What is the actual point of choices in games?

 

When people are whining about the concept of choices being 'black and white,' they're whining about the concept of truth existing at all.
 
The idiocy of that belief is tedious, but idiocy is far too common to really be upset about. No, the real problem of such as a belief is the hypocrisy. The fact that it's not a belief at all.

It's not a belief at all? Then what is it?

Also, noncognitivism is a thing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Just to build on the above before I forget-

 

If Paragon/Renegade were to return, here's some themes I could see in Andromeda in the context of an Ark Theory plot in which the story revolves around the inhabitants of the Arc trying to establish a new home in the next galaxy.

 

Paragon would have some of the classic themes of 'cooperative,' 'multi-racial,' and a deference to pre-existing authorities. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is someone else's galaxy- we're the intruders here,' and so seeks to avoid conflict by finding uncontested space. It would also be the more likely to embrace pan-species solidarity: all the races of the Ark sharing all the planets, or some such. Building alliances is the way to being tolerated. You're refugees, politely trying to find an unclaimed safe harbor to call your own.

 

Renegade would recall the more confrontational, self-interested, and self-empowering themes. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is our home now- and we'll fight to protect it,' and so is more willing to defend claims in contested space. It may or may not be interested in an pan-racial 'Ark' identity, but it would be more likely to have the elements of the Milky Way xenonationalism that seek to find a new home planet for each species. The Humans get a planet, and the Krogan get a planet, and the Salarians... etc. etc. etc. Increasing your capabilities and building good fences is how you'll have good neighbors in the new neighborhood. You're settlers, and this is your home now.

 

And so on. Neither is right or wrong: Paragon would be more considerate of the views of the already-present species, but would dabble into excessive deference for other races arbitrary land grabs and claims. Renegades may seem more unreasoanble, until they stand up to even more unreasonable claims which think that galactic proximity entitles one to entire unsettled star systems. But these broad political themes would help establish what sort of Humanity is going to establish itself in the new galactic context.

 

(Which, when you think back to ME1, was the role the P/R system first served. If Shepherd was the symbolic representation of Humanity, what sort of Humanity was the galaxy going to know?)

[Jorji Costava]

When people are whining about the concept of choices being 'black and white,' they're whining about the concept of truth existing at all.

 

The idiocy of that belief is tedious, but idiocy is far too common to really be upset about. No, the real problem of such as a belief is the hypocrisy. The fact that it's not a belief at all.

 

This looks dangerously close to a conflation between truth and certainty. Let's say that 'black and white' choices are choices whose correct resolution is obvious. Then, even a robust moral realism is compatible with the existence of choices that aren't black or white in this way. In the same way that there being a correct answer to the question "Is the Riemann Hypothesis true?" is compatible with no one having any idea what the answer to that question is, there being a right answer to the question "What shall I do?" is consistent with not knowing what that answer is. So one does not have to deny that there are moral truths in order to think that there can be moral dilemmas without obvious resolutions.

[Daemul]

Just to build on the above before I forget-

 

If Paragon/Renegade were to return, here's some themes I could see in Andromeda in the context of an Ark Theory plot in which the story revolves around the inhabitants of the Arc trying to establish a new home in the next galaxy.

 

Paragon would have some of the classic themes of 'cooperative,' 'multi-racial,' and a deference to pre-existing authorities. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is someone else's galaxy- we're the intruders here,' and so seeks to avoid conflict by finding uncontested space. It would also be the more likely to embrace pan-species solidarity: all the races of the Ark sharing all the planets, or some such. Building alliances is the way to being tolerated. You're refugees, politely trying to find an unclaimed safe harbor to call your own.

 

Renegade would recall the more confrontational, self-interested, and self-empowering themes. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is our home now- and we'll fight to protect it,' and so is more willing to defend claims in contested space. It may or may not be interested in an pan-racial 'Ark' identity, but it would be more likely to have the elements of the Milky Way xenonationalism that seek to find a new home planet for each species. The Humans get a planet, and the Krogan get a planet, and the Salarians... etc. etc. etc. Increasing your capabilities and building good fences is how you'll have good neighbors in the new neighborhood. You're settlers, and this is your home now.

 

And so on. Neither is right or wrong: Paragon would be more considerate of the views of the already-present species, but would dabble into excessive deference for other races arbitrary land grabs and claims. Renegades may seem more unreasoanble, until they stand up to even more unreasonable claims which think that galactic proximity entitles one to entire unsettled star systems. But these broad political themes would help establish what sort of Humanity is going to establish itself in the new galactic context.

 

(Which, when you think back to ME1, was the role the P/R system first served. If Shepherd was the symbolic representation of Humanity, what sort of Humanity was the galaxy going to know?)

 

If this were to happen I would go Renegade, because I refuse to share a home with the Krogan. They'd end up nuking the planet like they did multiple times to Tuchanka. Also if they somehow managed to cure the Genophage, we would be royally screwed due to rapid overpopulation. Nah, they can get their own damn planet.

[Jorji Costava]

Returning to the original subject, here's another random suggestion: If you're going to have a morality system or a reputation system, don't just implement it through dialogue. An example of what I'm thinking of here would be the colonist decision on Feros. In some ways, it's not a great decision, because if you're at all skilled, then using the knockout gas grenades is clearly the best option. But what's interesting is that the amount of P/R points you can get is highly variable, depending on how many colonists you get killed; it's not simply "Choose upper right for +8 Paragon, lower right for +9 Renegade." It's one of the few times in the series where the core gameplay mechanic (combat) is integrated with the game's role-playing and dialogue systems.

[Linkenski]

I had a lot more fun balancing it between paragon and renegade in Mass Effect 1 and 2 than I did with 3 because it was LESS nuanced... dumb rule-of-cool renegade moments from ME2 are actually good to have when you don't care about what's going on in the plot. We need that.

 

just putting it out there.

[KaiserShep]

 

Returning to the original subject, here's another random suggestion: If you're going to have a morality system or a reputation system, don't just implement it through dialogue. An example of what I'm thinking of here would be the colonist decision on Feros. In some ways, it's not a great decision, because if you're at all skilled, then using the knockout gas grenades is clearly the best option. But what's interesting is that the amount of P/R points you can get is highly variable, depending on how many colonists you get killed; it's not simply "Choose upper right for +8 Paragon, lower right for +9 Renegade." It's one of the few times in the series where the core gameplay mechanic (combat) is integrated with the game's role-playing and dialogue systems.

 

 

Poor colonists. In my first playthrough, I forgot to swap out the incendiary explosive for the anti-thorian gas. 

 

Another mission that I thought was sort of interesting was Besieged Base, where the researchers were drugged up and used as human shields. 

[SNascimento]

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

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

Isn't that what we had in the trilogy?
 

[Master Warder Z_]

Poor colonists. In my first playthrough, I forgot to swap out the incendiary explosive for the anti-thorian gas.

Bahahahahaaaaaa!

Ahhh...nothing clears up a spore infection like thermite

[SNascimento]

I had a lot more fun balancing it between paragon and renegade in Mass Effect 1 and 2 than I did with 3 because it was LESS nuanced... dumb rule-of-cool renegade moments from ME2 are actually good to have when you don't care about what's going on in the plot. We need that.

 

just putting it out there.

Renegade interrupts in ME2 were just awesome, plain and simple. And if you think about it, some had "positive" consequences. Killing the "you're woking too hard" guy for example made the dropship have less health when you fight it.

[Master Warder Z_]

Ahhhh the classic arc wielder to the spine

[KaiserShep]

I never knew the difference in the health of the gunship, because I never once skipped that renegade interrupt ever. I mean, what possible reason could there be NOT to kill that guy? I was fairly certain that the plan was to basically kill everyone within a 3 block radius anyway.

[Valkyrja]

It would have been nice if Garrus wasn't scarred if you sabotaged the ship.

[Vicex]

Every moral choice is an obvious right/wrong if you know the moral rules that govern it.

 

And if you don't, then arguably morality isn't relevant to you in that case.

 

 

That is not at all true. There are many individual ethical principles upon which you can build an argument for what is or is not moral. Often times, these principles can conflict. Take for example, the sanctity of life and autonomy in the much debated case of assisted suicide (obviously I've watered down the possible arguments quite a bit- but this serves simply to briefly illustrate how there is rarely a "good and a bad" choice.

 

I disagree but i think the difference here is what do you want out of your mass effect game, for me mass effect is a power fantasy and i believe thats its designed that way. your captain of your own badass spaceship with your highly specialized force of badasses saving the galaxy from the most badass kaiju esk space monsters then romancing the hot alien babe (or dude) going around destroying civilizations saving others, was freakin awesome. 

 

I think thats actually why people dislike me3 it didnt kill shepard it killed the fantasy, WE were shepard we were awesome and in the end we died in an explosion never being with are romance and not living to see our effect on the world... you know just like real life. We wanted to go down a badass or not go down at all, and we went down being electrocuted by space magic. and that's why people still complain, thats why people dont want andromeda because its personal.

 

People dont really want to make hard choices, i am sure some do, but most dont want to choose a direction, they want to choose an outcome. they dont want to leave things to chance they want to say ok they live they die. I think most can agree the suicide mission was awesome right? I think most people understood the premise of use a sneaky person use a biotic leave the big guys for the door. that's an awesome choice its easily accessible gameplay gameplay(doing loyalty quests)+ a semi obvious premise (if i remember right it even tells you your best choices). anyone who really liked that game could get the best possible outcome by simply putting the time in to learn the game. When you do things the outcome should be fairly obvious yes there wont be as many twists and turns, but in a power fantasy i want the power to determine what will happen, I already live a real life and cant always determine exactly what happens, but i can in mass effect.

 

this post is an opinion despite some things being stated as fact would love to see numbers though

 

Being invincible and knowing that we will complete our goals is boring. There is no challenge, and no doubt- no fear. You might well be playing a tunnel-shooter in a prequel where you know that the main character needs to survive at least to the next game/movie... and wiping out everything in front of you, and getting everyone to play nice with little effort is just laughable and oh so dull. Sure- it's a decent story, but it could be SO much better... there is so much more potential when you take away the invincibility and "good guy always win" crap.

 

People don't dislike Mass Effect 3 because 'it killed the fantasy' (whatever that means), they dislike the game because how it handled your decisions of past games, and to a much greater extent, how it handled arguably what could have been one of the most difficult decisions to make in the trilogy (had it been executed correctly). In the end, BioWare dropped the ball on it. That's what people don't like.

 

People LOVE hard choices... whether they know it or not. It gets people who are invested in the characters they are playing and surrounded with. Take Virmire back when Mass Effect 1 came out. Sure, many people did not like that you were forced to lose one or the other... but look at all the passion that came out of that debate of Ashley vs Kaiden back then... people seemed to put a great deal more care when you could actually lose a companion. Then Mass Effect 2 missed on the follow-up by making it far to easy to keep everyone alive. 

 

The truth of the matter is that if you only need to make 'easy' choices.... then are you really making a choice at all? Or are you just given the illusion of choice? 

 

That's your problem there- you want control over the entire universe... where as you only have the control over your character... We shouldn't get to decide the outcome of 'who lives/who dies', but rather, we should be able to make the hard decisions that, aggregated, lead to an outcome or an eventuality.

 

I've said it many times and I'll say it again: Absolute control, being 'invincible', and needling little effort to make longshot outcomes happen (or even allowing them happen at all) is dull, boring, and quite frankly overdone. 

 

Edit: I'll also through in a disclaimer that I have no numbers either, and would also be thrilled to find any.

Modifié par Vicex, 26 juin 2015 - 01:45 .

[Joseph Warrick]

Neither of which changes the game in any meaningful way. As with all loyalty missions, they're self contained stories. Miranda doesn't go AWOL if you don't help her with her sister. Tali doesn't commit suicide because of the shame of her dishonour. Wrex doesn't throw a wobbler and trash the ship because you don't help him find the meaning of life and that's the problem right there. Other games do. The industry moved on past the simplistic black and white approach to morality. Bioware stood still. In terms of this, KoTOR is no different to Inquisition despite there being eleven years between the two titles. Andromeda needs to move with the times.

 

First of all, loyalty affected the suicide mission so that was a meaningful change in the game. Secondly, I'm sorry, but you're mixing two different topics. Whether you use the paragon/renegade system has no bearing on whether your decisions have consequences later. You can have paragon/renegade system that is not applied to self-contained stories, and you can also have a dragon age type system with self-contained stories.

 

Bioware moved past the black and white approach in 2007, when it made the two meters independent of each other.

[saladinbob]

First of all, loyalty affected the suicide mission so that was a meaningful change in the game. Secondly, I'm sorry, but you're mixing two different topics. Whether you use the paragon/renegade system has no bearing on whether your decisions have consequences later. You can have paragon/renegade system that is not applied to self-contained stories, and you can also have a dragon age type system with self-contained stories.

 

Bioware moved past the black and white approach in 2007, when it made the two meters independent of each other.

 

I'm not mixing up anything. I want it scrapped. It's childish, idiotic and outdated. I've been clear on that for months. I want the choices I'm presented with to be nuanced and have meaning. As for meaningful change, it's actually more difficult to fail the suicide mission than it is to succeed in it and since there is a Mass Effect 3, the ending where everyone dies is not considered canon which undermines the very consequences of your decisions.

 

I'm not talking about a change to the ending, I'm talking about morality decisions impacting the game world from that moment forward rather than turning a meter blue or red and giving you morality points that are positive or negative. The entire Paragon/Renegade concept is just the Force by another name. You're either light side or dark side. Sorry to break it to you bud but that's not how the real world works.

 

I want it scrapped and replaced with an expanded reputation system that determines not only how NPCs react to you but also how your story progresses. Depending upon your reputation you should have some routes to the ending shut off and others opened up. The game should not be so linear. Your choices should not just affect the ending, they should affect how you arrive there.

[Vicex]

I want it scrapped and replaced with an expanded reputation system that determines not only how NPCs react to you but also how your story progresses. Depending upon your reputation you should have some routes to the ending shut off and others opened up. The game should not be so linear. Your choices should not just affect the ending, they should affect how you arrive there.

 

Exactly. Having the reputation as 'Ruthless' (or whatever) should cause other characters to interact with you differently.

 

Like, if you have throughout the game killed everyone and accepted no surrenders... that reputation should follow you so when you get to future events, fewer and fewer attempt to surrender after you've beaten them. So say, normally, an opponent you beat would surrender and you'd be able to extract mission critical information out of them... now, because of your reputation, they are dead, and you must devise an alternative means of completing your objective. 

[KaiserShep]

First of all, loyalty affected the suicide mission so that was a meaningful change in the game. Secondly, I'm sorry, but you're mixing two different topics. Whether you use the paragon/renegade system has no bearing on whether your decisions have consequences later. You can have paragon/renegade system that is not applied to self-contained stories, and you can also have a dragon age type system with self-contained stories.

 

Bioware moved past the black and white approach in 2007, when it made the two meters independent of each other.

 

I always thought that loyalty was kind of weird. Like, the character lacks just enough competence to die along the way. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

There wasn't a real difference between the two trilogies when it comes to the naive morality system of SW, specifically how shallow and childish the whole "Dark Side Vs. Light Side" thing is. And I say this despite the fact that I like the SW universe.

Han shoots first.  A good guy like Han would never shoot first in the prequels.

[KaiserShep]

Han shoots first.  A good guy like Han would never shoot first in the prequels.

 

And that is why they fail.

[In Exile]

Just to build on the above before I forget-

 

If Paragon/Renegade were to return, here's some themes I could see in Andromeda in the context of an Ark Theory plot in which the story revolves around the inhabitants of the Arc trying to establish a new home in the next galaxy.

 

Paragon would have some of the classic themes of 'cooperative,' 'multi-racial,' and a deference to pre-existing authorities. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is someone else's galaxy- we're the intruders here,' and so seeks to avoid conflict by finding uncontested space. It would also be the more likely to embrace pan-species solidarity: all the races of the Ark sharing all the planets, or some such. Building alliances is the way to being tolerated. You're refugees, politely trying to find an unclaimed safe harbor to call your own.

 

Renegade would recall the more confrontational, self-interested, and self-empowering themes. Politically, this would be the alignment that goes 'this is our home now- and we'll fight to protect it,' and so is more willing to defend claims in contested space. It may or may not be interested in an pan-racial 'Ark' identity, but it would be more likely to have the elements of the Milky Way xenonationalism that seek to find a new home planet for each species. The Humans get a planet, and the Krogan get a planet, and the Salarians... etc. etc. etc. Increasing your capabilities and building good fences is how you'll have good neighbors in the new neighborhood. You're settlers, and this is your home now.

 

And so on. Neither is right or wrong: Paragon would be more considerate of the views of the already-present species, but would dabble into excessive deference for other races arbitrary land grabs and claims. Renegades may seem more unreasoanble, until they stand up to even more unreasonable claims which think that galactic proximity entitles one to entire unsettled star systems. But these broad political themes would help establish what sort of Humanity is going to establish itself in the new galactic context.

 

(Which, when you think back to ME1, was the role the P/R system first served. If Shepherd was the symbolic representation of Humanity, what sort of Humanity was the galaxy going to know?)

 

The problem in ME1 was not the ideology but in the execution of the choices, because for the big ticket mission choices the renegade options were always a bit wonky. IMO, anyway. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Han shoots first. A good guy like Han would never shoot first in the prequels.

And the Emperor saw a vision of the vong and turned the republic into a military superpower to fight them.

o...o

[KaiserShep]

The problem in ME1 was not the ideology but in the execution of the choices, because for the big ticket mission choices the renegade options were always a bit wonky. IMO, anyway. 

 

One mission that I thought was actually pretty decent about this in ME1 was BDtS. Bonus points for being able to answer every protest of Balak's with a flesh wound and not even saying a word.