57 réponses à ce sujet

[The_Shade]

I like the OP's suggestion to have dialogue option that you may ultimately be better off not choosing. Right now, even in the best of RPGs, you never really have to think about what you actually want your character to say and what you may not want him/her to say. You just click through all given investigation options first, then choose the next answer to progress along the main tree according to your mood, rather then on what impact your response will have. In reality, I at least usually think about both when in a conversation.

The only game I can remember in recent years that tried to approach this in some way is Deus Ex: Human Revolution with it's persuasion system (which was great but only works when dealing with specific situations and NPCs).

If you always had the threat of giving "wrong" or at least suboptimal answers, it would make you think twice before clicking an option on the dialogue wheel. The consequences wouldn't always have to be world defining either. Of course, if you witlessly informed an enemy spy of your intentions, that may cause you significant problems (in which case there should however also be some subtle indication that you are in fact talking to a spy, it shouldn't be random). But it may as well be that you just say something stupid and get a snarky remark (Shepard's "Can Asari mate with their own kind?" was going in that direction actually) or you may anger someone and end a conversation prematurely, loosing some influence or the possibility of a romance option for a squad mate.

The consequences could and should be diverse but not entirely unpredictable. And the player should not be "punished" for choosing a "wrong" option so much as rather being offered a different experience, possibly more challenging in certain cases.

Mass effect did this in very few examples (persuading Saren/TIM over the course of the game so they'd shoot themselves later) but it only scratched the surface of it's potential there and I also think the paragon/renegade system held it back there.

Of course, all this would prerequisite the dialogue wheel paraphrases to be written very carefully because now, inconsistencies there would really have more than just cosmetic impact on one conversation.

 

Yeah, Deux Ex is a great example. I feel it's quite sad how dialogue trees have relatively remained the same since the 1990s and have barely evolved in any meaningful way in most games. In comparison to almost all combat mechanics in video games. This despite the great potential they have to complete change one's experience. For example, the scene where you have to save a hostage in the opening level of Deux Ex: Human Revolution through your dialogue felt far more intense to me than anything I had experienced in Mass Effect. I felt this because knew the hostage could die depending on my choice of words and also how long I took to come to make a decision. All of this added to the immersion to the gaming world and as you eloquently said, Bioware rarely implement this into their game. 

[The_Shade]

The Earth being destroyed is a clear difference to the Earth not being destroyed, wouldn't you agree? I mean, Earth is pretty important.

 

 

 

 

It would be in most cases and I understand where you coming from, but it is hardly touched upon in the original ME3 ending that it ultimately feels trivial. Looking at each and every ending side by side you can see that roughly 95% of the endings are the same and the term difference or different endings I feel doesn't convey what I see when watching the video above. There is little to no closure in the original endings that we cannot even assess the implications of Earth being destroyed as many fans would anticipate. 

[Dabrikishaw]

I agree that it's easier to have more choices matter when the game is a one-in-done. If the Mass Effect Trilogy has show us one thing, it's the  the realities and limitations of CRPG funding and technology.

[AlanC9]

It would be in most cases and I understand where you coming from, but it is hardly touched upon in the original ME3 ending that it ultimately feels trivial. Looking at each and every ending side by side you can see that roughly 95% of the endings are the same and the term difference or different endings I feel doesn't convey what I see when watching the video above.

But this just demonstrates that your feelings are non-rational. You're responding to superficial similarities in presentation rather than the substance of what is being presented.

This isn't really a problem for your argument, though -- your next move is to posit that presenting such big choices effectively requires a level of zot expenditure that Bio demonstrably can't afford.

[Mcfly616]

A different approach doesn't have to be stand alone games though. The Halo comparison doesn't work because, as I said, the way the Mass Effect trilogy is put together is very unique. I'm not saying here Andromeda has to be a trilogy, what I'm saying is that by making it one you would lose one of the factors that made Mass Effect special. 

And who can say it can't be done better? Actually, before all that, it's worth remembering that the ME trilogy is far from a failure, it didn't collapse at all, it was a very successful story. It had its shortcoming yes, especially concerning characters from ME2, but it did a lot of things well. If you're thinking about the endings, they have little to do with the structure of the trilogy, and much more with questionable creative decisions.

If it's up to me, I'd do a trilogy, but drop the scope. It's something people talk about a lot. The Genophage arc is probably the greatest trilogy spanning arc of the franchise, focus of the strength of that.

 The Halo comparison works because it started as a trilogy and went on to have standalone installments. Just because the Mass Effect trilogy imported your character doesn't make it "special" when the consequences of your previous choices don't amount to anything.

 

 

I never said it wasn't a successful story. However we're talking about the choice and consequence aspect and Bioware definitely faltered there. I'm far from the only one to notice. I don't think the ME2 characters were that big of a shortcoming compared to the lack of effect made by our decisions. In fact, the only time I felt they came up short was how shallow and similar they all were throughout the course of ME2's campaign. Their minimal involvement in ME3 is of little concern to me. I like the endings, so I wasn't talking about those. Merely choice and consequences. Cause and effect. They fell short of the potential. 

[PresidentVorchaMasterBaits]

GRRAAAAGH!! SHOULD ONLY HAVE ONE ENDING FROM NOW ON!! CHOICES TOO COMPLICATED! TOO MANY MAKES BAD GAME ENDING! EVERY DECISION SHOULD INVOLVE BURNING SOMETHING ANYWAY! ENDING SHOULD BE TO BURN WHOLE GALAXY! GRRAAAAAAGH!! THAT WAY, NOTHING AROUND TO MAKE ANY BAD ENDING! BURN IT ALL!!!!!111!!

[Mcfly616]

 

[Dar'Nara]

That would involve the destruction of Vorcha Master Baits, not to mention, burning, it might...hurt.

[LinksOcarina]

I assume this comes from DA2? I haven't played it but from what I heard its shortcomings have nothing to do with characters and plot. 

 

True, but not a lot of people saw it that way.

[Valkyrja]

I assume this comes from DA2? I haven't played it but from what I heard its shortcomings have nothing to do with characters and plot. 

 

DA2's problems have more to do with a rushed development and general poor execution than the larger premise of the game.

[SNascimento]

 The Halo comparison works because it started as a trilogy and went on to have standalone installments. Just because the Mass Effect trilogy imported your character doesn't make it "special" when the consequences of your previous choices don't amount to anything.

I'd argue it's one of the things that make it special. I reckon a lot of people and critics will agree with this. And decisions do have consequences, maybe not the kind of you're expecting, but playing Tuchanka with Mordin and Wrex or without one or both of them is totally different. Maybe not on the structure of the mission, but in how you feel it. The decision to betraying Wrex for example, it's only meaningful because you've built a relationship with him across the three games. Shooting Mordin in the back is similar. Another example is Rannoch. 

Both of these missions are the highlight of ME3, and some of the moments where the trilogy came together very well. With past decisions and relationship direct affecting the mission, and more importantly, your involvement with it. 

[Linkenski]

I wish BIoware would just say "We're making a game!" and then whether or not it would have choice/consequence that mattered was something they wouldn't advertise or even mention until they had a near-final product and had the confidence and reassurance that it is actually the fact that the game has all that.

 

Setting up sky-high expectations for this is just way too early for me. Their last couple of products were showcases in how Bioware largely failed to deliver on their golden pillar of meaningful choices and consequences, so to start speculating and debating how ME4 has to do this and that with choice/consequence seems very... unrealistic right now.

[The_Shade]

But this just demonstrates that your feelings are non-rational. You're responding to superficial similarities in presentation rather than the substance of what is being presented.

 

 

Well, we will have to agree to disagree then as so happens. Casey Hudson stated that the ME3 endings would be 'wildly different conclusions'. In all the original endings Shepard dies, the Normandy crashes on an unknown planet and the Mass Relays appear destroyed. To me, that's not what I consider to be completely different endings. Although in a different genre, Infamous 2's hero and antihero conclusions are an example what I consider uniquely different. Also, I can only respond to what is being presented because the original endings in ME3 had hardly any substance at all in my view. That's why Bioware felt compelled to release Extended Cut DLC for free in order to provide a clear explanation on what actually happened as a result of fan protests and/or logical plot holes.

[Former_Fiend]

I just want the choices and consequences of those choices to make sense.

 

Biggest example of violating that, in my opinion, is the hardening of Leliana in DAI. That consequence had no logic to it, wasn't at all foreseeable, and in general was a ham-fisted mistake.

 

Mind your own business and keep your mouth shut early on when it's not your place to tell her how to do her job? Later on when it becomes your business to tell her her job, you decide to tell her she screwed up when it's objectively true that she did? Then congratulations, later on in the game she will blatantly and openly defy your orders and murder a defenseless woman who posed no real threat to you.

 

It's a completely unforeseeable consequence of your action and it makes no real sense for a litany of reasons that I've ranted about elsewhere.

 

So if they can avoid doing things like that, I'll be happy.

[AlexiaRevan]

Doesnt matter , even if they give us choices...it wont matter if they screw us like they did in DAI and make our choices have no impact . 

 

-yes you can denie the herald Title , here lets show you (in a Vid Live) 

 

-Oops! Didnt mention it won't matter..you will still be called the Herald and all your 'Dont call me that!' dont mean squat..sorry . Now suck it up .

[Sartoz]

I wish BIoware would just say "We're making a game!" and then whether or not it would have choice/consequence that mattered was something they wouldn't advertise or even mention until they had a near-final product and had the confidence and reassurance that it is actually the fact that the game has all that.

 

Setting up sky-high expectations for this is just way too early for me. Their last couple of products were showcases in how Bioware largely failed to deliver on their golden pillar of meaningful choices and consequences, so to start speculating and debating how ME4 has to do this and that with choice/consequence seems very... unrealistic right now.

 

                                                                             <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Unrealistic?.. Yes!

 

However, speculation based on past Bio games that failed to deliver from their marketing hype is a good counterpoint to Bio's eventual ME:A hype coming down the pike. This "grounded speculation" may:

 

1. Keep EA/Bio advertising/hype from getting too fictional

2. Keep the fans (that read this) from being swept up in the hype and

3. Manage fans' expectations.

 

Certs, I will not pre-order another game from Bio, based on DAI's content vs their marketing of said game.

[9TailsFox]

I admit, I enjoyed their games more when this was the case. Not sure if it was because of it or in spite of it. I still think the import idea is a cool feature, but maybe overly ambitious. And if they are gonna do it, they gotta be all in. Not this "ME2/ME3 is a good place to start" bullshit. No one watches a film trilogy that way.... except maybe some friend or date you dragged into the theater with you.

This like Dreamfall: Chapters get criticism because characters introduced bad and lacked.No it's not I know who characters are if you don't it's your problem. Zoe have all game of introduction go and play, this is sequel old characters don't need introduction.

[AlanC9]

This like Dreamfall: Chapters get criticism because characters introduced bad and lacked.No it's not I know who characters are if you don't it's your problem. Zoe have all game of introduction go and play, this is sequel old characters don't need introduction.

This would make sense in a better universe. But the customers the game companies actually have expect to be able to jump into a sequel and get brought up to speed right away.

[Mcfly616]

Snip.

 the choices that had any real consequences (e.g. Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs) are very few and far between. Not what I expected? I'd reckon just about every Bioware fan that was around for ME1 and 2 was expecting a little more weight to many of our decisions, a little more effect to many of the consequences.

 

 

So two major instances within the plot of the 3rd installment.....I'll stand by my original sentiment. In terms of a trilogy worth of choices and consequences, they fell short of the potential.

[AlanC9]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree then as so happens. Casey Hudson stated that the ME3 endings would be 'wildly different conclusions'. In all the original endings Shepard dies, the Normandy crashes on an unknown planet and the Mass Relays appear destroyed. To me, that's not what I consider to be completely different endings.

Well, except that Shepard doesn't die in high-EMS destroy. And while those other things you mention are true, listing a couple of things that are the same in all endings isn't evidence that the endings really are identical.

Now, of course, you can still argue that the endings are not "completely different" since they do have some common factors. This is true. It's also a profoundly silly standard to hold games to.

Although in a different genre, Infamous 2's hero and antihero conclusions are an example what I consider uniquely different. Also, I can only respond to what is being presented because the original endings in ME3 had hardly any substance at all in my view. That's why Bioware felt compelled to release Extended Cut DLC for free in order to provide a clear explanation on what actually happened as a result of fan protests and/or logical plot holes.

But remember, most of what the EC did was to go straight down the line and confirm the simplest and most literal reading of the pre-EC ending. What you see in the EC is what sensible players assumed would happen before the EC came out; the threads are still here if you want to see them for yourself. Even the silly evac scene is a way to explain something which we already knew had happened, since squadmates on the beam run did get to the Normandy somehow. Changing the relay explosion VFX is the exception that proves the rule; the easiest way to shut down the dopey novas-will-destroy-everything argument was to alter the VFX.

[AlanC9]

the choices that had any real consequences (e.g. Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs) are very few and far between. Not what I expected? I'd reckon just about every Bioware fan that was around for ME1 and 2 was expecting a little more weight to many of our decisions, a little more effect to many of the consequences.

Because ME2 was so great at giving you effects from ME1 decisions? Really?

[Mcfly616]

Because ME2 was so great at giving you effects from ME1 decisions? Really?

 Who said it was, really?

[Ahriman]

I just want the choices and consequences of those choices to make sense.

 

Biggest example of violating that, in my opinion, is the hardening of Leliana in DAI. That consequence had no logic to it, wasn't at all foreseeable, and in general was a ham-fisted mistake.

 

Mind your own business and keep your mouth shut early on when it's not your place to tell her how to do her job? Later on when it becomes your business to tell her her job, you decide to tell her she screwed up when it's objectively true that she did? Then congratulations, later on in the game she will blatantly and openly defy your orders and murder a defenseless woman who posed no real threat to you.

 

It's a completely unforeseeable consequence of your action and it makes no real sense for a litany of reasons that I've ranted about elsewhere.

 

So if they can avoid doing things like that, I'll be happy.

She should have been dead, to begin with. That would be logical consequence to my decision.

I don't know whom to blame here but Bioware was always kind of lame in terms of influence on teammates. Obisidian did a much better job with this in KoTOR2 where you had master-padavan relationships.

On the other hand all your teammates are grown up, you can forbid someone to do something, but you can't change their character.

[AlexiaRevan]

She should have been dead, to begin with. That would be logical consequence to my decision.

I don't know whom to blame here but Bioware was always kind of lame in terms of influence on teammates. Obisidian did a much better job with this in KoTOR2 where you had master-padavan relationships.

On the other hand all your teammates are grown up, you can forbid someone to do something, but you can't change their character.

not everyone killed Leliana....

 

so maybe thats the why...

 

and I think in game consequences related to story are more important then 'I knifed Leliana..why is she back?' ....

[Ahriman]

not everyone killed Leliana....

 

so maybe thats the why...

 

and I think in game consequences related to story are more important then 'I knifed Leliana..why is she back?' ....

That's because it was a choice, I guess.

 

The fact that Leliana is not important to story makes this immortality retcon even more ridiculous. Bring some new character and work with him, but nooo it must be Leliana, nobody else in Thedas would fit.