That's nonsense. They're directly earned by the player.
Not in any meaningful sense. They're earned by playing a video game. A mass produced product deliberately and carefully designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by players as young as 12 or so and of not only average, but considerably below average intelligence and skill.
Not in any meaningful sense. They're earned by playing a video game. A mass produced product deliberately and carefully designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by players as young as 12 or so and of not only average, but considerably below average intelligence and skill.
In a literal sense of the word. The player earned that ending. You seem to be using it in the sense of "deserve", with some moral connotation to boot, but that's not how that word works.
When it comes down to outright "evil" choices, such as "I'm gonna kill you for teh lolz" or "gimme all your money or I cut you up", well, I couldn't care less. That kind of thing doesn't fit in the kind of stories Bioware are trying to tell these days, and getting rid of them completely is a good thing.
But when it comes down to more morally grey questions - in ME terms, those where the distinction between Paragon and Renegade is done well - then I definitely think there should be more variety in outcomes rather than making the "nice" choice always work and the "ruthless" choice bite you in the ass (or at the very least, having you sacrifce lives for no advanatge over saving everyone). I don't want the latter to always be the best answer, but in BW games it is rarely if ever the right answer, and that gets a little boring (it's not just ME - take the main "gather allies" quest in DA:O. All of them have [at least] a "good" and a "ruthless" way through. And yet, doing it the good way always works out. You save the day, you get a strong goup of allies. Going the ruthless way only gives you different people fighting alongside you at the final battle. There's no drawbacks to being nice. I'd've really liked it if at least one of them really went bad if you tried to save everyone. Lets say, for example, Cullen was right. The remainng mages were possesed. So siding with the Templars would be the correct choice....).
As an example, and one of the best illustrations of this kind of well designed Paragon/Renegade choices in Mass Effect, take the final choice in Bring Down the Sky. If you try to kill Balak then the hostages will die. But conversely, everything he says, everything he does, indicates that, should he be allowed to escape, he will attempt similar attacks in the future, and there might well not be a Shepard around to stop them next time. This is, for me, one of the hardest choices to make. There is no clear cut "right" answer. There's a "good" answer (save the hostages) but given what you know at the time, you cannot be in any way sure that it's the "right" one.
Of course, in hindsight, we now know there is no downside to saving the hostages. The subsequent Reaper War and the damage done to the Batarians prevents Balak from commiting further atrocities. But imagine if it hadn't? Imagine if, had you allowed him to leave, he had subsequently been able to, say, detonate a nuke on a human colony? Or even something as simple as his survival leading to Batarian raiders being stronger, thus diverting and costing a greater part of the human military over the years between ME1 and 3, leaving you with less forces to fight the Reapers. Suddenly, being the "nice guy", has backfired on you.
Now, I'll say it again, I don't want all the renegade choices to end up like this. A relentlessly grimdark setting where being a classic "hero" never works is tedious. I want there to be times when doing the "good" thing is the right choice. But I want there to be times when being ruthless, being willing to sacrifice people for the greater good, is the "correct" option.
I see "good" choices to be extremely time consuming and hard but everyone wins and you get goodwill which can translate into help in the future (or not) while "evil" choices are convenient and you and your goals win, regardless of everyone else. In between this two extremes are the variety of choices
Lets say a turian has a large cargo hauler that you need to transport arms to fight the reapers on earth. You can choose to negiotate and come to terms with the turian or shoot him and take his ship.
If you shoot him, he is unable to transport survivors from a turian colony before reapers attack, adding in several thousand turian deaths but you get the weapons to earth faster more humans get a fighting chance against the reapers. You are also reviled by the turians if the incident is exposed and can expect a lesser chance of cooperation from them. Later on, earth is overrun and you need to get as many survivors out to the rim colonies. The turian ships refuse to help and tell you to go shoot yourself
If you negiotate, he tells you he has to transport turian colonists first. If you help him, you get more turians out as you help delay the reaper attack but get the weapons to earth later and more humans die unarmed while the turians takes note of the incident. Later earth is overrun and you need to get as many surviviors out to the rim colonies. The turians agree to help and mobilise several ships saving tens of thousands before the last defence is overrun
I see "good" choices to be extremely time consuming and hard but everyone wins and you get goodwill which can translate into help in the future (or not) while "evil" choices are convenient and you and your goals win, regardless of everyone else. In between this two extremes are the variety of choices
While I certainly would like to have some options like this, I would really annoy me if all the "evil" choices were short term gain and the "good" ones long term. Take the example I put in my above post, of saving hostages vs killing the terrorist - the "good" option is the short term one: you save people now, whereas the "evil" one is the long term option: you sacrifice some lives now to save a greater number in the long run.
The key for me is variety. There should be times when taking the "good" option leads to a good outcome, and there should be times when it backfires on you. Likewise "evil" options are sometimes worthwhile and sometimes not (and of course, there should be situations when neither option works...). Having a consistent approach should not always lead to the same outcome. You shouldn't be able to go into a situation thinking "if I take the nice option, it'll benefit me in the long run". You should go into a situation thinking "I don't know what the consequences of this decision will be, so I'm going to do what the character I'm roleplaying as would think would be the best outcome".
While I certainly would like to have some options like this, I would really annoy me if all the "evil" choices were short term gain and the "good" ones long term. Take the example I put in my above post, of saving hostages vs killing the terrorist - the "good" option is the short term one: you save people now, whereas the "evil" one is the long term option: you sacrifice some lives now to save a greater number in the long run.
The key for me is variety. There should be times when taking the "good" option leads to a good outcome, and there should be times when it backfires on you. Likewise "evil" options are sometimes worthwhile and sometimes not (and of course, there should be situations when neither option works...). Having a consistent approach should not always lead to the same outcome. You shouldn't be able to go into a situation thinking "if I take the nice option, it'll benefit me in the long run". You should go into a situation thinking "I don't know what the consequences of this decision will be, so I'm going to do what the character I'm roleplaying as would think would be the best outcome".
Thats why there's a "(or not)" in there. You are basically taking a gamble that there will be reciprocity (or for the truly good ones, there was no thought of future reward). This may not turn out and you lose resources while gaining nothing or in fact get burnt as the receipent may expose you for their own further gain or use information from you to harm others.
As for the scenerio, think about it. If you kill Balak, who is to say that there will not be someone replacing him with even worse methods? Who is not say that the ones saved would not themselves or their children, contribute to a brighter future (or a worse one)? Its not really possible to calculate all future possibilities especially when you have pretty much zero information so any choice has to be one with results that you can currentli anticipate.
Of course, in a video game, you cannot do that well as after the first playthrough, who will burn you and who will help you becomes clear.
Oh i also forgot to add, in the example prior, if you shoot the captain, you're likely hailed as a hero of humanity while if you do the nice guy way, you're probably labelled a traitor to humanity or alien dog. LOL
In a literal sense of the word. The player earned that ending. You seem to be using it in the sense of "deserve", with some moral connotation to boot, but that's not how that word works.
Whatever words you want or don't want to use, the point is that players should not be feeling that some work or sacrifice has to be made or some 'real' challenge has to be completed for the story to have a 'good' outcome.
Not consciously, anyway. When he's immersed in the game and in the flow state, it's fine for the player to relax and enjoy the feelings of triumph and power and whatnot that are part of the appeal of video games and RPGs. But when we're here, analyzing these things, that pleasant illusion needs to be recognized for what it is.
Thats why there's a "(or not)" in there. You are basically taking a gamble that there will be reciprocity (or for the truly good ones, there was no thought of future reward). This may not turn out and you lose resources while gaining nothing or in fact get burnt as the receipent may expose you for their own further gain or use information from you to harm others.
As for the scenerio, think about it. If you kill Balak, who is to say that there will not be someone replacing him with even worse methods? Who is not say that the ones saved would not themselves or their children, contribute to a brighter future (or a worse one)? Its not really possible to calculate all future possibilities especially when you have pretty much zero information so any choice has to be one with results that you can currentli anticipate.
Of course, in a video game, you cannot do that well as after the first playthrough, who will burn you and who will help you becomes clear.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything in this post, I was more objecting to your characterisation of "good" as long term and "evil"* as short term in the previous post, when in practice, it's a lot more varied.
Now, certainly, you don't know whether killing Balak is worth the lives of the hostages. There is eveidence, based on his actions and dialogue, that it might be but not proof. You don't know how things will play out. And that's why I think it is a great choice. Theres a clear cut "paragon" vs "renegade" decision, but given the position you're in, there's not a clear cut "right" answer (in the sense of "what will turn out best"), it comes down to the personality, the beliefs of the particular Shepard you're playing. But the justifications are the opposite from the way you presented good and evil - the paragon choice is based on the short term "I know I can save these lives now", whereas the renegade one is a long term view "if I let Balak live, chances are he will kill far more people in the long run".
Where I object to the way BW has done things in the past is that, when faced with this kind of choice, the "paragon" option always works out. You never run into a situation where, by making that choice to save people now, you cost far more people their lives in the future.
* as an aside, I don't think the term "evil" really applies to ME, or indeed BW games as a whole these days. There are the odd decision you can make that falls under that category, but given the stories BW are telling, the majority of times it's about being ruthless, being willing to make sacrifices, "serving the greater good", but still maintiang the overall goal of doing the "good" thing of saving the city/country/world/galaxy etc.
Where I object to the way BW has done things in the past is that, when faced with this kind of choice, the "paragon" option always works out.
And why is it that you object to that?
And why is it that you object to that?
Beacuse it's boring and unrealistic.
Where I object to the way BW has done things in the past is that, when faced with this kind of choice, the "paragon" option always works out. You never run into a situation where, by making that choice to save people now, you cost far more people their lives in the future.
There are times where choosing the Paragon option does this.
For example, sparing Rana Thanoptis in ME1. In ME3 it turns out she gets indoctrinated and kills several people.
Personally I'd like it if the big moral choices were on a level with DAI's. Less "good choice/mean choice" and more about the options available.
None of them are 'grimdark' in the sense of "every choice is hopeless", but you can't point to one and say "that's the good option." It's more about what's applicable to the situation. I particularly liked that Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts gives a lot of nuances to the choice.
There are times where choosing the Paragon option does this.
For example, sparing Rana Thanoptis in ME1. In ME3 it turns out she gets indoctrinated and kills several people.
Yeah, I probably should've said that the Paragon choie almost always works out. There are a few cases like this, but when it comes to the big decisions, BW are very reluctant to present any kind of negative consequences for taking the "good" options over a more ruthless path.
See, if you had just said you found it boring, I would have respected that. But then you went and ran into trouble.
First of all, this is not about 'realism' at all. The people who are claiming it is are kidding themselves. Let's talk about 'realism.'
You're with you're two companions and you meet someone might be innocent, might be a criminal. He claims to be innocent, begs for his life, blah blah blah. You can execute him or spare him. Your noble companions tell you firmly you not to do it, insisting you can't take a person's life because he might be guilty. You decide to take the supposedly 'safe' option and execute him. That way you know he doesn't hurt anyone later on.
As soon as you do, your two companions immediately shout at you in enraged anger, draw their weapons, and step several feet back. They order you to drop yours. Drop your weapons they say, and they'll escort you to the authorities to be detained and interrogated and eventually tried.
You have an option to go for your own gun of course, but if you do you're immediately shot and killed. This is 'realism' after all, not a silly power fantasy where you can draw faster than two trained killers sighted down on you can twitch their trigger finger.
And so you put down your weapons, go with them, and the rest of the game is 'Sit-in-Jail-Simulator-5000.'
Now then, you'd think if this was really about 'realism,' this thread would be full of people advocating scenarios just that. But they aren't, are they? Funnily enough, every 'realistic' choice has pretty much everyone else being docile and obiedient to whatever acts of murder, genocide, torture, and so and on and so forth you commit. We can't have 'realism' getting in the way of our fantasy, can we now?
Is that what 'realism' looks like to you?
But secondly, even if all that wasn't true, it's entirely irrelevant because it's not what the issue is even about. Pretty much every action video game ever made has the protagonist cutting through hundreds of mooks. That's obviously abhorrantly 'unrealistic.' Hell, it's pretty much any fiction that involves any sort of combat, period. The protagonist surving against overwhelmingly odds is an absolute staple. Clearly, 'realism', if we consider 'realism' to be 'that which is most likely to occur were this situation to manifest in real life,' is not what fiction is concerned with.
How would you define Good and Evil anyway? The world is not so black and white. Was it an act of evil to destroy a cure for a disease that affects an entire species, resulting in mass still births or was it an act of good to destroy the cure because the species might represent a galactic treat? What about the destruction of a Mass Relay that would result in the deaths of three hundred thousand civilians in order to save trillions from extinction at the hands of the Reapers? Life and death isn't a numbers game and it's moral dilemmas like this that the games have refused to offer up any meaningful consequences for.
So I'll say it again. Rather than having overly simplistic labels applied to your actions, there should be consequences for them that determine your reputation and in turn, how people deal with you. It shouldn't determine whether it's a good or bad ending, but how you, and in turn, humanity/council races, are perceived by residents of the new Galaxy. If you're seen as a war monger, perhaps certain traders won't deal with you, perhaps you can't land at certain colonies and have to discover information in other ways. Having consequences determine your reputation and therefore how people deal with you opens up Mass Effect to a whole new level of interesting level design. The game is no longer linear and has multiple options open to you in how you play which adds replay value to the game giving the people playing it 'more game for their buck', so to speak.
It's amazing to me that we still have people who act as though they're announcing something spectacularly novel and revolutionary by claiming 'the world is not black and white.'
Time to move beyond the kiddie table philosophy, folks.
You're with you're two companions and you meet someone might be innocent, might be a criminal. He claims to be innocent, begs for his life, blah blah blah. You can execute him or spare him. Your noble companions tell you firmly you not to do it, insisting you can't take a person's life because he might be guilty. You decide to take the supposedly 'safe' option and execute him. That way you know he doesn't hurt anyone later on.
As soon as you do, your two companions immediately shout at you in enraged anger, draw their weapons, and step several feet back. They order you to drop yours. Drop your weapons they say, and they'll escort you to the authorities to be detained and interrogated and eventually tried.
Gosh, such out of air example. Grunt and Jack turning you to authorities on Omega?
The 'realism' we are talking about, is that idealistic approach should not be most succesful strategy. What about that you don't understand?
Faster gameplay, faster romancing, feeling dirty after playthrough.
Not sure what being evil actually entails however I do like to take decision that put an end to every pending issues and problem and be 100% sure it won't arise again.
- I don't see putting down the Rachnis as evil. They are a nuisance and are easily controlled by my enemies so they have to go.
- Rana worked for my enemy, down she should go. Nothing evil in that
- Supporting the genophage IF wrex isn't leading the Krogan is smart.
I don't want to leave loosing ends, if this makes me evil then so be it.
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 think best thing would be that you don't have "evil" choices to begin with. Just choices that have certain outcomes, both positive and negative.
I still think Star Wars is to blame for BW childish approach to good and evil. The whole light vs dark side nonsense. The real divide should be idealistic vs pragmatic. The question is you get a mission but how low are you willing to go to get that job done. Sometimes playing dirty should have the best outcome sometimes refusing to compromise should backfire on you. I think that being good = always best results is a stereotype that should disappear.
I still think Star Wars is to blame for BW childish approach to good and evil. The whole light vs dark side nonsense. The real divide should be idealistic vs pragmatic. The question is you get a mission but how low are you willing to go to get that job done. Sometimes playing dirty should have the best outcome sometimes refusing to compromise should backfire on you. I think that being good = always best results is a stereotype that should disappear.
To be fair, ME did try to shift it towards an "idealistic" vs "pragmatic" attidute, with the whole Paragon vs Renegade thing. And in terms of the options available when you make decisions, for the most part, they did it pretty well. There aren't a lot of renegade options that are outright evil / selfish. Of the choices where it is actually a decision as opposed to simply changing your tone, most of the renegade choices are "making sacrifices for the greater good" or "doing what we have to in order to win" type things and not "gimme all your money or I shoot you". The problem, as you and many others have pointed out in this thread, is the consequences for those choices nearly always favouring the Paragon option.
I think best thing would be that you don't have "evil" choices to begin with. Just choices that have certain outcomes, both positive and negative.
Then we'll get into Witcher territory, where you choose between sorts of bastards. Such choices have their appeal, but I end up hating both, if different companies have different writing it will be much better. Mass Effect is space opera after all, so I never expected it to be gray.
Well, Dragon Age: Origins managed to do this right.
"Evil" choices gave you usually more benefits - keeping the Anvil gave you powerful golems in final battle, slaughtering the Dalish gave you stronger warewolves. Smuggling and being a criminal, threatening and stealing gave you more gold.
But it generally led to world becoming a worse place.
However, Mass Effect did it wrong - most of the time, Paragon choices lead to better results.
But the worst of all, the whole idea of Paragon/Renagade scores is flawed - because to succeed in diplomacy checks, you need certain amount of either Paragon or Renegade points, This makes the decisions not the matter of morals or results, but a character development choice. It's a bad way to design the game, and I will argue that it was the worst flaw of Mass Effect games.
Retour en haut