Tension. Conflicts. Guilt. Remorse. Character Motivations. The Feeling, that your Choices Matter.Things to talk about. Excitement.
If it's just a choice by itself, (which the overwhelming majority of such choices are), it doesn't accomplish any of those things. Why would it?
What exactly is it you think this is supposed to accomplish, narratively?
Force us into difficult positions, really drive home the fact we are not an almighty hero who can save everyone. If Marine Bros little Sister dies because of us then it changes the whole dynamic of our relationship. Then again the Quarian dude will approve greatly and maybe that research pays off later (be it in another mission, or with new gear, or in the prologue, etc...).
Maybe that system would not work, but just decisions that cannot be negated by a "3rd option" and really force us to "choose" and face the consequences and benefits of our choices would be a addition in my opionion. Heys that ryhmes! 
Simple logic isn't a retort for you, huh?
This really isn't that difficult to follow. If players are vehemently opposed to characters mandatorily being present on missions, vehemently opposed to companions being present and having very influential roles regardless of how they feel about them, vehemently opposed to not being able to kill or dismiss or at the very least ignore any character they don't personally like, you're going to have a very difficult time integrating even one or two characters heavily into the central plot and conflicts. Much less a half dozen or more of them.
I personally disagree. I think BioWare should heavily involve squadmates in the central conflicts, and if players don't like that 'their' character acts in a certain way, that's just too bad. But I seem to be in the minority there.
So where exactly do you imagine this leaves us? If we take away the possibilities involving characters and the central plot, I would say that leaves us with the possibilities not involving characters and the central plot. That seems pretty simple to me. That doesn't seem pretty simple to you?
If it's just a choice by itself, (which the overwhelming majority of such choices are), it doesn't accomplish any of those things. Why would it?
Huh? 
Force us into difficult positions, really drive home the fact we are not an almighty hero who can save everyone.
Okay. So what? Difficult positions are not conflicts and resolutions. What does 'forcing the player into difficult positions' accomplish? As to the second point, I cannot think of a single heroic story that pretends it's protagonist can 'save everyone.'
Huh?
If you have a very clearly 'good' character and a very clearly 'evil' character, and the shining good character defeats the snarling evil character, and that's it - nothing else - you've got utterly atrocious writing on your hands. Because the mere existence of a 'good' and an 'evil' person by themselves is entirely pointless. It doesn't mean anything.
The ending of Inquisition is about as perfect of an example of this as you can get. Clear heroic good character. Clear villainous evil character. Good beats evil. And it's probably the worst single piece of writing I've seen from BioWare. Maybe tied with the Crucible.
Now then, there seems to be this very silly idea that somehow, if you have a 'grey' character and another 'grey' character, or a grey decision and another grey decision, now it's no longer pointless. By virtue of being 'grey,' it inherently becomes interesting. It becomes meaningful.
And it doesn't. 'Grey' characters and decisions are pointless by themselves just as good and evil characters and decisions are pointless by themselves.
Okay. So what? Difficult positions are not conflicts and resolutions. What does 'forcing the player into difficult positions' accomplish? As to the second point, I cannot think of a single heroic story that pretends it's protagonist can 'save everyone.'
To answer your previous question, most choices by themselves are only meaningful if you are invested in their outcomes. If you are then having to make such choices brings interest, tension and so on.
As far as heroic stories where the protagonist can save everyone I'd draw your attention to pretty much the entire Marvel comics oevre before the gritty '90s. It may not be great literature but it fits your description. If you replace "save everyone" with "save everyone you care about" then that covers many many video games and movies.
Okay. So what? Difficult positions are not conflicts and resolutions. What does 'forcing the player into difficult positions' accomplish? As to the second point, I cannot think of a single heroic story that pretends it's protagonist can 'save everyone.'
Difficult positions cause us to make tough decisions. These decisions may create conflicts in-game. Perhaps these conflicts cause more issues down the road (for example you kill Wrex in ME1 - In ME2 Wreave becomes the Leader of Tuchanka instead - This has major implications as to the fate of the Krogan race in ME3). These choices make each character and playthrough unique, sparks discussion and debate among the fanbase, makes us feel like our choices matter, etc.... If you don't like that, go play COD's six-hour shooter-on-rails campaign. *drops the mich*
First of all, it's completely silly to imply that the player can 'avoid all the consequences.' Even an absolute perfect playthrough the series, Shepard is still encountering setbacks and loss on many occansions.
More importantly, the idea here seems to be that the only legitimate narrative way to make progress is through 'sacrifice.' You have to 'sacrifice' to achieve anything. You have to 'sacrifice' to move forward. Obviously it's legitimate to say you have to sacrifice to achieve some things, but you're acting as if you have to sacrifice to achieve anything. Where's the basis for this? It's not and never has been about sacrifice, it's about competence.
It also has to be a setback which is the result of a choice, preferably one that doesn't literally come down to "crew member dies" or "crew member doesn't die". Of the list of consequences that fit that list, the most of them can be negated with a high enough Paragon or Renegade dialogue option.
Kai Leng showing up and pulling out his plot armour on Thessia is a setback, but not a consequence of a choice I made. He shows up and does that regardless of what I do.
I'm not saying you have to sacrifice to achieve anything. I'm saying that if you're going to make us sacrifice something as a result of one of our choices then make us actually sacrifice it. Don't let us yell at it in blue or red to revert the sacrifice.
I personally disagree. I think BioWare should heavily involve squadmates in the central conflicts, and if players don't like that 'their' character acts in a certain way, that's just too bad. But I seem to be in the minority there.
Why only the squadmates? What's wrong with having crewmembers involved with the story as well? Take away the crewmembers, the squadmates can't get anywhere if there's no pilot to take them to the location. No doctor to heal their wounds. No communcations to pass any information that could help on the mission. No engineers to maintain the drive core of the ship.
Companion are Bioware strong point so i would love for them general have more options, giving our MC more ways interact with them.
For example i want a mixed opinion option, instead of a balance between net-like/dislike that DA uses, they shouldn't forget the good/bad thing you do just because you did more of the other. Things like respect but disagree with you, thinking you are insane, so on.
Obviously it would alot better written that my poor excuse of an example but conflicting interests of squad members could ensure we're never best friends with everyone, creates conflict and tension between crewmembers and between the Player. Combine a couple Loyalty missions and make us choose between squadmembers. These could effect friendship and romance arcs too. Sort of like in ME2 between Jack and Miranda or Tali and Legion where they would argue and we'd have to pick sides (Only in ME2 they gave us a third option that made everyone happy) only now it would come in the form of a mission with no "3rd options". Just a suggestion.
No. I don't want lose-lose choices. Especially when there are logical ways to have a third option, but you are denied that because drama.
Companion are Bioware strong point so i would love for them general have more options, giving our MC more ways interact with them.
For example i want a mixed opinion option, instead of a balance between net-like/dislike that DA uses, they shouldn't forget the good/bad thing you do just because you did more of the other. Things like respect but disagree with you, thinking you are insane, so on.
Interesting... more accurate than a binary "bar" that represents your entirel relationship with that person. Reminds me of Fallout New Vegas where if you anger say... the NCR Army but pull a heel-face-turn and help them then you get a special reputation where they are not really sure how to feel about you. If your a loyal ally before betraying the NCR they will still hate you, but they will also remember the good you did for them and thus they're soldiers won't shoot you on-sight. Would be cool if ME:A did something similiar.
No. I don't want lose-lose choices. Especially when there are logical ways to have a third option, but you are denied that because drama.
Don't get me wrong. Not every situation has to be a grey-on-grey no win situation. But ocassionally hitting us with situations where we can't "shout-to-win" and are forced to make a difficult decision would help humble the player a bit. If a logical solution exists, use it (why can't biotic Shep stop Kai-leng on Thessia) but letting us win via illogical means (eg: being blue or red enough to yell everyone into line) can be tiring too.
If you're going to allow people to completely negate the consequence by using a mechanic that we all get automatically with absolutely no sacrifice, then the consequence was pointless to give us in the first place.
It's like the suicide mission. Once you know the correct answers it's got very little to do with your character and more of a question of "do you as the player want anybody to die?".
Even the most charming or intimidating person in the world can't avoid all consequences for their actions by yelling at people in blue or red.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like a very interesting approach to choice to have scenarios that let players bypass the dilemma like Tali's trial. Sure you could hand over the evidence or get Tali exiled but why would you do either of those when you can just hit the auto-win button, yell, and get everything you want? The other choices are invalidated. Similarly why would I get people under my command killed on the Collector base if I can avoid it?
Hopefully there will be fewer choices in this game that are so blatantly choosing between success or failure.
Don't get me wrong. Not every situation has to be a grey-on-grey no win situation. But ocassionally hitting us with situations where we can't "shout-to-win" and are forced to make a difficult decision would help humble the player a bit. If a logical solution exists, use it (why can't biotic Shep stop Kai-leng on Thessia) but letting us win via illogical means (eg: being blue or red enough to yell everyone into line) can be tiring too.
I agree that for the third option should have to have the player work for it to get that "win" option, but I don't think there should be choices where that is impossible. For example the Geth-Quarian conflict resolution. While yes Shepard yells people into line, they are only able to do that because of a combination of their actions building that possibility into existence. The talk down was only the final push. You had to earn that option.
why has this discussion gotten so personal so quickly?
Anyway, companion quests are usually fun, interesting, play with different settings and gameplay mechanics (it's often quite hard to fit in a shoot-out into a companion quest), involve lots of dialogue (which is a good thing, given that BW actually takes writing seriously), develop characters further, and generally play to BW's strengths - short, tight plots focussed on character development is something they can do. I think most people would agree with this?
What we're really debating is whether companion quests should act as side quests (as they do in ME1 or Dragon Age), or a mandatory feature of the main game, tied into the final mission's game mechanics, a la loyalty quests in ME2.
I think the mechanics of loyalty quests in ME2 is fairly contrived - I can understand that your crew will need to take care of some things, but that's something they should do on their own. It becomes very contrived when the crew members are new and don't know Shepard that well. Trust is something that's earned in steps, not made with one quest and some charm points, but taking the option to help out and have your friend's back on multiple occasions. For these reasons, I think actually the only ME2 loyalty quest that makes complete sense is Tali's - you have known her a while, if you helped her out in ME1 she's got even more reason to trust you with personal issues, and the public allegation of treason is never really "just personal stuff" anyway, it has political ramifications, serious enough that you probably have reason to deal with it now. The DLC quests also make a lot of sense - they're included as part of the bargain of Zaeed and Kasumi coming along in the first place (Zaeed's, in particular, only becomes a personal issue really by accident - it's a simple quest but well thought-out).
So I'd agree that optional companion quests which unlock based on approval levels, how far along you're in the game (and how much you've got to know them as a result), and dialogue options taken in the past make lots of sense. I also think ME3's system of adding companions to main quests relevant to them as kinda quasi-companion-quests works as a way of making dialogue as interesting and quests as involving as possible (I suppose it's hard to justify companion quests when the world ends - it's probably why there's a lot more cutscenes and non-quest dialogue).
As for failing/passing loyalty quests - if the circumstances fit, then sure, why not? It makes things interesting. It might be a better mechanic of turning someone properly hostile to you, or potentially losing them from your crew. As long as you can have a fair bit of well-written hostile dialogue where you can argue over your decisions (often, there's way more friendship dialogue than there is hostile), then sure. I'd generally caution against lose-lose scenarios though, unless you've taken some choices previously that put you in that position (e.g. in DA:O, if you kill all the mages in the mage tower, you can't peacefully deal with demon-possessed child later, meaning you lose a tonne of approval from one companion) - unless you've backed yourself into a corner by your own volition, often there's a logical way out.
I agree that for the third option should have to have the player work for it to get that "win" option, but I don't think there should be choices where that is impossible. For example the Geth-Quarian conflict resolution. While yes Shepard yells people into line, they are only able to do that because of a combination of their actions building that possibility into existence. The talk down was only the final push. You had to earn that option.
The Geth/Quarian & Krogan/Salarian were rather well done your right. Perhaps making us work (and sacrifice) for our "option three" happy ending is the best way to handle some of these situations.
Sure you could hand over the evidence or get Tali exiled but why would you do either of those when you can just hit the auto-win button, yell, and get everything you want? The other choices are invalidated. Similarly why would I get people under my command killed on the Collector base if I can avoid it?
Hopefully there will be fewer choices in this game that are so blatantly choosing between success or failure.
Anything you do in all but very niche video games is a 'win' button.
That's what a video game is. A mass produced product deliberately designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by not only the player of average intelligence and skill, but significantly below average intelligence and skill. A delberately easy experience you the player complete by pressing buttons on a plastic controller or keyboard in an air conditioned room. A game. That's the reality.
Whatever advertisers may say, video games are not 'proving grounds' to demonstrate how awesome, you, they player are for beating them.
You may as well ask why do video games even have enemies? You're just going to shoot them. They're easy to overcome. If you die, you just hit the reset button and try again.
I agree that for the third option should have to have the player work for it to get that "win" option
Video games are not 'work.'
Nothing in the story is 'earned' by the player. Only by the protagonist.
Anything you do in all but very niche video games is a 'win' button.
That's what a video game is. A mass produced product deliberately designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by not only the player of average intelligence and skill, but significantly below average intelligence and skill. A delberately easy experience you the player complete by pressing buttons on a plastic controller or keyboard in an air conditioned room. A game. That's the reality.
Whatever advertisers may say, video games are not 'proving grounds' to demonstrate how awesome, you, they player are for beating them.
You may as well ask why do video games even have enemies? You're just going to shoot them. They're easy to overcome. If you die, you just hit the reset button and try again.
Video games are not 'work.'
Nothing in the story is 'earned' by the player. Only by the protagonist.
Enemies exist to provide challenge, which if you are playing on the appropriate difficulty they will not be that easy to overcome. Dialogue exists to make the story interesting and provide player influence into it.
If the only options for Tali's trial were to either expose the data and get her father shamed or hide it and get Tali exiled then a player of below average intelligence and skill could still beat it because there isn't a way to fail that choice. Both are viable choices, each with their own consequences.
Instead by offering a solution that solves everything, as Wolfhowwl said the choice is now "Do you want success or failure?" instead of choosing between equal but different options.
If you want to imply that making a dialogue choice where you don't get to pick "fix everything" as one of the options is work, then you probably shouldn't be playing BioWare games.
Did you find Legion's loyalty mission to be "work"? Because that one is a perfect example of what a no right answer choice looks like. We're asking for more of that(arguably you can say ME3 trivialized the choice later on, but that's another discussion entirely).
Anything you do in all but very niche video games is a 'win' button.
That's what a video game is. A mass produced product deliberately designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by not only the player of average intelligence and skill, but significantly below average intelligence and skill. A delberately easy experience you the player complete by pressing buttons on a plastic controller or keyboard in an air conditioned room. A game. That's the reality.
Whatever advertisers may say, video games are not 'proving grounds' to demonstrate how awesome, you, they player are for beating them.
You may as well ask why do video games even have enemies? You're just going to shoot them. They're easy to overcome. If you die, you just hit the reset button and try again.
Video games are not 'work.'
Nothing in the story is 'earned' by the player. Only by the protagonist.
Bloodborne sold well. According to VGChartz (not sure how accurate they are, but it's all I got) It did about as well as ME3 did on the PS3.
I'm not saying Mass Effect should go for some uber difficult festival of pain like From Soft games, but removing obvious win buttons and providing more challenge shouldn't get in the way of selling a product.
Enemies exist to provide challenge, which if you are playing on the appropriate difficulty they will not be that easy to overcome.
And yet you get the exact same story if you switch to a lower difficulty, don't you? Clearly, getting the 'best' story is not dependent on how hard you 'work' at killing enemies. It's not dependent of how 'smart' or 'tactical' you are as a player with the combat.
Did you find Legion's loyalty mission to be "work"? Because that one is a perfect example of what a no right answer choice looks like. We're asking for more of that(arguably you can say ME3 trivialized the choice later on, but that's another discussion entirely).
A better question would be to ask if I find the lead ups to the quarian-geth choice in ME 3 to be 'work.' And I don't. It's not work, it's a video game. It's content I paid money to play.
Players have this idea that for the protagonist to get a better outcome, the player needs to 'work' for it. They need to be 'smarter.' They need to be more 'tactical.' Because smarter, more tactical, harder working players 'deserve' a better outcome. And being offered a better choice is pointless if you don't have to 'work' for it because there's no reason players would pick anything else. And it's a dead end line of thinking.
It gives the player the experience of command in a difficult position.Okay. So what? Difficult positions are not conflicts and resolutions. What does 'forcing the player into difficult positions' accomplish?
And yet you get the exact same story if you switch to a lower difficulty, don't you? Clearly, getting the 'best' story is not dependent on how hard you 'work' at killing enemies. It's not dependent of how 'smart' or 'tactical' you are as a player with the combat.
A better question would be to ask if I find the lead ups to the quarian-geth choice in ME 3 to be 'work.' And I don't. It's not work, it's a video game. It's content I paid money to play.
Players have this idea that for the protagonist to get a better outcome, the player needs to 'work' for it. They need to be 'smarter.' They need to be more 'tactical.' Because smarter, more tactical, harder working players 'deserve' a better outcome. And being offered a better choice is pointless if you don't have to 'work' for it because there's no reason players would pick anything else. And it's a dead end line of thinking.
The question is specifically about Legion's loyalty mission because it perfectly shows what I'm asking for more of: A scenario where you are offered two choices where neither is the best answer and neither is a wrong answer.
Tali's trial on the other hand perfectly shows what I didn't like: A scenario where you are offered three choices, two of which are equal but different and the third is superior to the others.
I'm not asking for the "best" outcome to be more difficult to get. It would be more accurate to say that I am asking for the "best" outcome to be removed entirely from more choices in the game. There is no work or difficulty involved in making a dialogue choice, but it does make it more interesting if that choice doesn't have a "best" answer the majority of the time.
I have no idea where you're getting this idea that I think players should be working for anything. I play insanity because I enjoy the difficulty and that is all I need. I shouldn't get anything extra just because I played the game on a higher difficulty. The only thing I could ask for is that insanity in ME:A be a little bit more difficult, as I felt it was too easy in Mass Effect 3.
The question is specifically about Legion's loyalty mission because it perfectly shows what I'm asking for more of: A scenario where you are offered two choices where neither is the best answer and neither is a wrong answer.
Tali's trial on the other hand perfectly shows what I didn't like: A scenario where you are offered three choices, two of which are equal but different and the third is superior to the others.
You were the one who replied to my original response about work.
I'll ask you the same thing. What do you think is the point of these choices you're advocating? What is it, narratively speaking, that they add the story?
Retour en haut