376 réponses à ce sujet

[BabyPuncher]

Which doesn't mean a thing. I did just say a few posts ago the narrator is in total control. He and do and say anything he wants. He can make a universe that functions on whatever rules he desires.

[Seboist]

Even without Spectre status, Renegade Shepard would've gotten away with a lot of things in ME1, as a lot of it occurred on chaotic or uncharted worlds with little to no authority present. Same with ME3 in the midst of the biggest war the current cycle has ever seen.

[The Heretic of Time]

Which doesn't mean a thing. I did just say a few posts ago the narrator is in total control. He and do and say anything he wants. He can make a universe that functions on whatever rules he desires.

But you also argue that "evil" choices not beig punished is unrealistic, while in Mass Effect that is not the case, because the narrative of Mass Effect justifies why we are capable of making morally questionable decisions without being put in jail or worse. It perfectly makes sense and it's realistic as far as realism in fiction goes.

[KaiserShep]

I can assure you that a huge number of Renegade actions would land Shepard in prison or worse.

 

Most of the time, Shepard is well beyond places where there's any formal authorities. Like, if Shepard does something terrible on Tuchanka or Omega, you can be sure that no one will call anyone about it. And then there's remote locations out in the wilds of the galaxy, where there may be absolutely no one to report anything at all. Of course, a lot of the time, it's also justifiable as self-defense too. Case in point: Feros. Killing the colonists is justified because they are thralls of the thorian, making them enemy combatants. Shepard isn't obligated to use the gas grenades, because his/her life is in mortal danger, and simply killing them is the more efficient solution. Killing the rachni queen? Since the Council during the rachni wars actually presided over their extermination, I'd say that the queen was under no legal protections, but then, Noveria is a lawless corporate hellhole anyway, where people do much worse beyond the gaze of the law. 

 

In ME3, there's no time for prison anyway, since it's basically the end of the world. 

 

ME2 does make a hard case for itself though, like when killing Joram Talid. That option is simply daft, because you're doing it right in front of C-Sec. 

 

But, at least the story did have Shepard actually get detained for blowing up the alpha relay, since that potentially affects everyone everywhere. 

[themikefest]

Let me begin by saying that every RPG I've ever played has had 'good' choices and 'good' dialogue that I really don't think are all that good at all. Choices that come off as outright dumb, as poorly argued, as not bothering to take variables into account, as hypocritical, and so on and so forth.
 
And I pick those choices anyway, because that's what leads to the best story.

For me it leads to a boring playthrough being all goody-two-shoe and everything
 

Why would you ever pick the 'evil' options in a video game on a dramatic, first time playthrough?

To use your words, it leads to the best story

 

Video games first and foremost need to be fun. Nonexistent punishment and incredibly feeble opposition to evil are part and parcel to that in choice driven RPGs.

I have fun playing renegade. This playthrough I had fun. 

 

I can assure you that a huge number of Renegade actions would land Shepard in prison or worse.

You can believe that, but since I'm a spectre I can do whatever I want whenever I want 

 

ME3 needed a lot more renegade in the game, especially more renegade interrupts.

[Dantriges]

And why should the companions abandon you?

ME 1: Two soldiers under your command, former C-Sec fed up with regulations, the quarian who´s thankful that you treat her as a person and protect her from the meanie. And ehm yes, Wrex.   Yeah Alliance could say something, OTOH you got them council status and your actions are covered by galactic law. They covered harkin, why should they go after you, you got the what they wanted, rocking the boat would be counterproductive.

ME 2 your crew ranges from criminal to criminally insane, Samara who is bound by oath and friend Tali who has no reason to like galactic law enforcement and quite a few reasons to like you personally.

ME 3: Shadow Broker, illegal AI, friend Garrus again, the quarian who got her homeworld back because of you and two soldiers again in a now broken military and who lost their homeworld.   

[SolNebula]

It always felt difficult for me to be in one or the other morality system. I basically wanted to be a good guy who is though ruthless with its enemies. I care for my squadmates but I have no regret to gun down everyone who is threatening me or my friends. I realized I'm kind of a Paragade (good motives but ruthless methods) and it's really difficult (especially in ME2) to be like that.

[God]

OK, I think the word of God needs to come in here and dissect this:

 

David punching Bob said:

 

 

Mmm-kay.

 

 

 

 

Already off with the haughty scoff. Well done. But it doesn't fool anyone.

 

I have a question for you. And for anyone else who agrees with this.

 

Let me begin by saying that every RPG I've ever played has had 'good' choices and 'good' dialogue that I really don't think are all that good at all. Choices that come off as outright dumb, as poorly argued, as not bothering to take variables into account, as hypocritical, and so on and so forth.

 

 

Translated from Branch Davidian (all translations from Branch Davidian will be in quotations) = "I didn't like that the good options that I liked didn't end the way I wanted them too. I don't like it when reality and practical outcomes actually happen. I want my meaningful heroism to be rewarded, and I want people I don't agree with to be punished, because they deserve it."

 

And I pick those choices anyway, because that's what leads to the best story.

 

 

 

"I don't like that I have to pick these options to get what I want. My heroism is what should matter, not pragmatism or rationality!"

 

Why would you ever pick the 'evil' options in a video game on a dramatic, first time playthrough?

 

 

 

We have an entirely separate definition of evil here I think, and in your case, I should say entirely misinformed and ignorant ideology towards it. 

 

Let's look at evil, and how we get there, right? Evil is excessive/unnecessary suffering, that can happen for really no reason at all to anybody. Still, you get a lot of leeway to define what exactly constitutes suffering, especially the necessary/unnecessary part. 

 

This delves into ethics, both normative and meta-ethical. Normative ethics are more concerned with action and relating it to how to approach a moral problem. Meta-ethics involves language to determine what is moral in the first place. They don't always necessarily agree, especially if you break normative ethics down to either deontological or teleological subsets. Deontology is, in many ways, an ethics of duty, of asking oneself "what is right?" Teleology on the other hand focuses on the question one asks "What is good?" While you're trying to imply that they aren't mutually exclusive (and they aren't, but not in the way that you're trying to say that they are), you're leaving out the differentiation of definition between 'good' and 'right'. Which, I really don't think you know any better on, but it's still an injustice to hold such base dichotomous perspectives. 

 

Of course, you think that such black and white views are the only way to view the world. That's a hallmark of a person who either isn't there mentally, or isn't very... mentally formidable. I label you in both categories here.

 

And I didn't even break down teleology further!

 

You're not the narrator. The story is out of your hands. If the narrator says 'This guy is good and he gets a happy ending,' that's what's going to happen, period, and crying all day won't change that no matter how wrong or evil you think the character is. If the narrator says 'This guy is evil and siding with him will lead to consequences' that's what's going to happen, and if you don't like it, that's just too bad.

 

 

 

What a charming way to preclude the existence of an unreliable and biased narrator. Of course, those don't exist in Branch Davidian fantasy land.

 

We people prefer intellectual justification for determining what is evil and what is good. We also want much more of a blurring of the lines of morality, and no narrative hand to hold every step of the way. We want practical and rational instead of 'evil'. We want idealistic and optimistic instead of 'good'.  

 

Besides, you're acting as if you're idea is actually an underscore for what most of the games refer to. 

 

Despite the pointed jab towards others, it seems like you're trying to rationalize it to yourself more here on why people are 'bad' players. 

 

I'm struggling to see what is it you think you're accomplishing here. Do you think that by choosing the 'evil but actually right choice' that your thoughts are going to go though your television screen and beam into the writers heads? You think that when you 'disagree' with the writers, you're showing them whose boss by picking the choice they don't like? You're 'rebelling,' you're putting them in your place? You're showing them they don't control you?

 

 

 

You mean, what you did for most of the ME trilogy? And Dragon Age?

 

But yes, actually, that is exactly what you're doing. BW records playthrough's (including who plays as what), and they generally take perspective into account. They're not like you, a sieve full of dirty water that can't be emptied as more water is poured into it. They're willing to look at nuance and subtlety and to take into consideration more complex and ambiguous moral, ethical, and practical responses. This is seen several times in the games when the 'evil' position usually has the best solution.

 

Personally, I think they need to make more decisions based off the ethical and moral implications of the ME3 ending, where there is no clear-cut right or wrong choice.

 

You on the other hand need to practice what you preach; this derision that you're throwing at others only applies to others. Of course, it's something different for you when you don't get what you want after all. Because David knows better. Right?

 

It's just ridiculous. You're just stamping your feet and screaming "No narrator, YOU'RE WRONG!!!" Why are you even bothering with a story at all? This is what you paid $60 for. To hear what the narrator has to say. And then you cover your ears when you hear something you don't like and chant "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"?

 

 

 

Like you did with Fallout New Vegas, Mass Effect 3, and Dragon Age: Inquisition?

 

Honestly, I think you're more into some schizophrenic meltdown where you're trying to justify to your id why you actually bought and play the game.

 

So, are you lying to yourself, or to the people here on this board? Cuz you're lyin'.

 

There is not a single work of fiction I've ever come across where I agree with everything the narrator says. But...so what? I nod my head and move on. I pick the good choice, think to myself 'this isn't really that good,' and move on.

 

 

 

Hence your continued "appraisal" of games here. Which is kinda the point.

 

But sure, shoot down people's attempts to provide feedback and criticism, something that most authors, creators, and yes, narrators enjoy. 

 

Except yours. That's about right. You are after all, the only intelligent and rational person on these boards after all.

 

I mean, really, how mentally incapable to you have to be to imagine that the story 'forces' you to believe something because the choice isn't put in the moral light you want it to be put in? I'm astounded by how incapable RPG players seem to be of handling a narrator they sometimes disagree with.

 

 

 

If that's your term for people asking for (and generally receiving) more ambiguity, then you're wrong. Dead wrong. 

 

But overall, no more capable than you mentally do this exact same thing here when the game isn't up to your all-knowing standards David. 

 

All in all, this is more of a self-analytical perspective (actually, more like a self-destructive rant) on your own views. I think I may have cracked you David.

 

You aren't arguing with other people here: you're arguing with yourself!

[Sidney]

Renegade was never designed to be "dark side" it was supposed to be more of a "no right or wrong what works is right" approach. I don't need to eat babies and shoot puppies. I do need to save a colonial base because it is pragmatic or keep the collector research because losses be darned it will help in the long run.

What I do not need is
1. Being a jerk to my friends being "renegade". I'm a hero making the rules and breaking the rules...but I have friends. Again, I'm not a Sith.

2. Paragon and Renegade actually affecting the game I silly ways. Not being able to shut down the Jack/Miranda fight unless you had basically maxed out your blue or red made no sense. If it could be used intelligently, threaten to shoot a dude in the knees to get info and if you are renegade that is a credible threat..sure but otherwise don't penalize nuanced characters in the game.

[Larry-3]

Back in my days there were things called "dialogue options" where you could choose what your character needs to do instead of pressing buttons when blinking icons appear on screen. *grumbles*

It is more fun to interrupt them in mid sentence and be mean... or nice.

[Gothfather]

I think the people who are QQing about not being able to be as evil as possible seem to forget the whole point of the morality system isn't there to create an option for you to be evil. Renegade was never designed to be a way for you to be evil, it was a way to create options in your actions but LIMITED options. The options you got to choose from were ones that would NOT get you arrested and sentenced to life or death. The options were such that they limited your choices to within a range that command would find acceptable.

 

And this is the way it should be. Your ability to be a dick in the game should be limited to what your team, your superiors and the public will tolerate before they arrest you. People complained that DA:O let you be totally psychotic evil but DA:I didn't and its like hello you are playing the leader of a quasi-religious and quasi-military order. There is only so much BS people will tolerate in such a leader before they kill you. Especially one they are not 100% sure about which they are not till after skyhold and even then the order is new and they will respond against you if you give them cause.

 

The option to be evil does not fit most civilised organisations and unless you operate without oversight like the warden did in DA:O or the your team did in KOTOR being a psychopath doesn't make sense. The level of morality or the lack of it should be LIMITED to the story.

[Ahriman]

It is more fun to interrupt them in mid sentence and be mean... or nice.

Oh yeah, if only someone invented dialogs which could do this while having choice of options. Maybe with some timer, perhaps. Would be cool. Not as awesome button cool, but still.

 

I think the people who are QQing about not being able to be as evil as possible seem to forget the whole point of the morality system isn't there to create an option for you to be evil. Renegade was never designed to be a way for you to be evil, it was a way to create options in your actions but LIMITED options. The options you got to choose from were ones that would NOT get you arrested and sentenced to life or death. The options were such that they limited your choices to within a range that command would find acceptable.

Well, yeah, they are limited. Because it's a damn game, they are always limited.

Point of morality system is to track your decisions. And it will track every decision writers allow you to make.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Mmm-kay.

 

I have a question for you. And for anyone else who agrees with this.

 

Let me begin by saying that every RPG I've ever played has had 'good' choices and 'good' dialogue that I really don't think are all that good at all. Choices that come off as outright dumb, as poorly argued, as not bothering to take variables into account, as hypocritical, and so on and so forth.
 

And I pick those choices anyway, because that's what leads to the best story.

 

Why would you ever pick the 'evil' options in a video game on a dramatic, first time playthrough?

 

You're not the narrator. The story is out of your hands. If the narrator says 'This guy is good and he gets a happy ending,' that's what's going to happen, period, and crying all day won't change that no matter how wrong or evil you think the character is. If the narrator says 'This guy is evil and siding with him will lead to consequences' that's what's going to happen, and if you don't like it, that's just too bad. 

 

I'm struggling to see what is it you think you're accomplishing here. Do you think that by choosing the 'evil but actually right choice' that your thoughts are going to go though your television screen and beam into the writers heads? You think that when you 'disagree' with the writers, you're showing them whose boss by picking the choice they don't like? You're 'rebelling,' you're putting them in your place? You're showing them they don't control you?

 

It's just ridiculous. You're just stamping your feet and screaming "No narrator, YOU'RE WRONG!!!" Why are you even bothering with a story at all? This is what you paid $60 for. To hear what the narrator has to say. And then you cover your ears when you hear something you don't like and chant "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"?

 

There is not a single work of fiction I've ever come across where I agree with everything the narrator says. But...so what? I nod my head and move on. I pick the good choice, think to myself 'this isn't really that good,' and move on.

 

I mean, really, how mentally incapable to you have to be to imagine that the story 'forces' you to believe something because the choice isn't put in the moral light you want it to be put in? I'm astounded by how incapable RPG players seem to be of handling a narrator they sometimes disagree with.

 

What the hell was the point writing all those paragraphs and talking about stuff that I never mentioned?

 

All I said was get rid of the meter because most people just start picking top for everything because PARAGON! or bottom for everything because RENEGADE!

 

Just give us variations of choices in many scenarios instead of worrying about what's a paragon chocie or a renegade choice. For example, I killed the Rachni Queen because I didn't trust her in ME1 but suddenly I get Shepard spouting about how the Rachni are a dead race and pushing random Asari woman around like a douche.

[Galbrant]

Well, I still wanted a option to kill Jacob if I had a Femshep that romanced him. So that evil. If you call it evil that is.  No wait kill his hussy first then drown him while he is overwhelmed with grief. That'll show him!

[Mystlock]

Most of the people'd go renegade for the badassery if that's their play style, and that was so good when in the middle of quarrels Shepard could become brusque when things are going wrong, and does it for getting things done and getting people seeing things right. When he/she keeps casual too, the violent actions/demands look easily-made too

[Quarian Master Race]

ME2 does make a hard case for itself though, like when killing Joram Talid. That option is simply daft, because you're doing it right in front of C-Sec. 

You just followed him around as he shook down human businesses, so it isn't entirely unjustified, albiet it is completely extrajudicial and the death penalty is a bit severe. C-Sec can't do anything to you anyway if you are a Spectre, and even if you aren't it's not as if Bailey's crooked arse is very interested in upholding the law anyway, especially in favour of the antihuman racist guy he was complaining about 5 minutes ago.

[Dantriges]

It´s a bit dumb as the council could get quite a lot of flak, when a human spectre shoots a turian politician with an antihuman agenda with a bunch of C-Sec witnesses in this political climate. Seems to me that the limits of Spectre authority are "how much hassle do your actions cause for the council."  Yeah i know that you could be a total jerk to the council in ME 1, but well I thought that the council was simply waiting for a convenient time to get rid of you which never came because you let them die or saved their butts. Mr "the council can kiss my a**" was more or less doing the council´s work after all; getting rid of Saren and providing tons of evidence that humanity is unfit for a council seat.

 

Tevos: We deny humanity´s request for a council seat.

Udina: But why? Is there any justification for this outrageous...

Sparatus turns on holovid

Shepard: The council can kiss my...next scene..Hi, bye.. disconnect

Tevos: We´ve given you a fair chance and that´s how the guy you chose for spectre position presented your species. You may now apologize and go back to your embassy.

 

But that´s based only on personal opinion probably even in the area of headcanon.

[Gwydden]

ME2 does make a hard case for itself though, like when killing Joram Talid. That option is simply daft, because you're doing it right in front of C-Sec. 

It's established that as a Spectre, Shepard can do pretty much whatever he wants. Getting arrested by the Alliance, who should have no authority whatsoever over him, actually contradicts that.

[KaiserShep]

It's established that as a Spectre, Shepard can do pretty much whatever he wants. Getting arrested by the Alliance, who should have no authority whatsoever over him, actually contradicts that.

 

And that kind of falls apart in the fact that Shepard can actually tell the Council to shove their Spectre status up their ass, so it's possible that Shepard has absolutely no legal protections whatsoever, only Bailey's inclination, or disinclination to really do anything about it. While it's hilarious to use that line and Udina's response afterward is priceless, it just adds to the ridiculousness of ME2 Renegade.

[Dantriges]

Yep.   Seems the Alliance pulled it off anyways. Shepard is probably inconvenient enough for the political establishment that no one really complained when he got  swept under the rug. Especially after Arrival.

[BabyPuncher]

Most of the time, Shepard is well beyond places where there's any formal authorities. Like, if Shepard does something terrible on Tuchanka or Omega, you can be sure that no one will call anyone about it.

 

I very, very much doubt that.

[Gwydden]

And that kind of falls apart in the fact that Shepard can actually tell the Council to shove their Spectre status up their ass, so it's possible that Shepard has absolutely no legal protections whatsoever, only Bailey's inclination, or disinclination to really do anything about it. While it's hilarious to use that line and Udina's response afterward is priceless, it just adds to the ridiculousness of ME2 Renegade.

Oh, yeah, right. But my point still stands. If Shepard's a Spectre he can get away with it. I don't necessarily like the whole 'Spectre immunity' idea. In fact, I think it's incredibly silly, but the devs decided to go with it and then dropped it without an explanation. Although in general, your Spectre status was irrelevant beyond the first game.

 

I very, very much doubt that.

Yeah, lawless places don't last long. I'm pretty sure someone somewhere would take issue with Shepard just doing whatever he/she wants on Tuchanka and Omega. Like the people who live there, for once.

[God]

I very, very much doubt that.

 

Your belief is not required for it to be correct. It is, and you are not.

[God]

Yeah, lawless places don't last long. I'm pretty sure someone somewhere would take issue with Shepard just doing whatever he/she wants on Tuchanka and Omega. Like the people who live there, for once.

 

Not if they value their life. Wouldn't last long against a spectre after all. Best hope is to shut up and do what they say before they cap you.

[KaiserShep]

Not if they value their life. Wouldn't last long against a spectre after all. Best hope is to shut up and do what they say before they cap you.

 

Replace "Spectre" with "Player character" and it'd be more on the nose. Doesn't matter what the character's status is. Anyone with a health bar from your perspective is doomed.